^av  of  mfi^ 


*  A. 


BX  9831 

.N677  : 

L833 

Norton, 

Andrews,  1786-1 

853. 

A  statement  of 

reasons 

for 

not  be] 

.ieving 

the 

doct 

rines 

STATEMENT  OF  REASONS 


FOR   NOT   BELIEVING 


THE  DOCTRINES  OF  TRINITARIANS, 


CONCERNING 


THE  NATURE  OF  GOD,  AND  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


By  ANDREWS  NORTON. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

BROWN,  SHATTUCK,  AND  COMPANY, 

BOOKSELLERS    TO    THE    UNIVERSITT. 

BOSTON: 

HILL  I  A  RD,  GRAY,  AND  CO. 

1833. 


Entered,  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1833, 

By  Andrews  Norton, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

CHARLES  FOLSOM,  PRINTER  TO  THE  UNIVERSITY. 


PREFACE. 


In  the  year  1819,  I  published  an  article  in  a 
periodical  work,  of  which  a  number  of  copies 
were  struck  off  separately  under  the  title  that 
I  have  given  to  this  volume.  I  have  since  been 
requested  to  reprint  it,  and  some  years  ago 
undertook  to  revise  and  make  some  additions 
to  it  for  that  purpose.  Being,  however,  inter- 
rupted, I  laid  by  my  papers,  and  had  given  up 
the  intention,  at  least  for  an  indefinite  time. 
But  having  lately  received  an  application  from 
a  highly  esteemed  friend,  strongly  urging  its 
republication,  I  resumed  the  task ;  and  the 
result  has  been,  that  I  have  written  a  new  work, 
preserving  indeed  the  title  of  the  former,  and 
embodying  a  great  part  of  its  contents,  but  ex- 
tending to  three  times  its  size. 

I  have  said,  '  I  resumed  the  task';  and  the 
expression  is  appropriate,  for  the  discussion  is 
one  in  which  no  scholar  or  intellectual  man  can, 
at  the  present  day,  engage  with  alacrity.  To  the 
great  body  of  enlightened  individuals  in  all  coun- 


IV  PREFACE. 

tries,  to  the  generality  of  those  who  on  every 
subject  but  theology  are  the  guides  of  public 
opinion,  it  would  be  as  incongruous  to  address 
an  argument  against  the  Trinity,  as  an  argument 
against  transubstantiation,  or  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  or  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  or 
the  divine  right  of  kings.  These  doctrines,  once 
subjects  of  fierce  contention,  are  all,  in  their 
view,  equally  obsolete.  To  disprove  the  Trinity 
will  appear  to  many  of  whom  I  speak,  a  labor,  as 
idle  and  unprofitable,  as  the  confutation  of  any 
other  of  those  antiquated  errors  ;  and  to  engage 
in  the  task  may  seem  to  imply  a  theologian's 
ignorance  of  the  opinions  of  the  world,  and  the 
preposterous  and  untimely  zeal  of  a  recluse 
student,  believing  that  the  dogmas  of  his  books 
still  rule  the  minds  of  men.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of 
this  doctrine  in  any  work  of  the  present  day 
of  established  reputation,  not  professedly  theo- 
logical. All  mention  of  it  is  by  common  con- 
sent excluded  from  the  departments  of  polite 
literature,  moral  science,  and  natural  religion ; 
and  from  discussions,  written  or  oral,  not  purely 
sectarian,  intended  to  affect  men's  belief,  or 
conduct.  Should  an  allusion  to  it  occur  in  any 
such  production,  it  would  be  regarded  as  a  trait 
of  fanaticism,  or  as  discovering  a  mere  secular 
respect  for  some  particular  church.  It  is  scarcely 


PREFACE.  V 

adverted  to,  except  in  works  professedly  theo- 
logical ;  and  theology,  the  noblest  and  most  im- 
portant branch  of  philosophy,  has  been  brought 
into  disrepute,  so  far,  at  least,  as  it  treats  of  the 
doctrines  of  revealed  religion,  by  a  multitude  of 
writers,  who  have  seized  upon  this  branch  of  it 
as  their  peculiar  province,  and  who  have  been 
any  thing  but  philosophers. 

Why,  then,  argue  against  a  doctrine,  which 
among  intelligent  men  has  fallen  into  neglect 
and  disbelief?  I  answer,  that  the  neglect  and 
disbelief  of  this  doctrine,  and  of  other  doctrines 
of  like  character,  has  extended  to  Christianity 
itself.  It  is  from  the  public  professions  of  na- 
tions calling  themselves  Christian,  from  the 
established  creeds  and  liturgies  of  different 
churches  or  sects,  and  from  the  writings  of 
those  who  have  been  reputed  Orthodox  in  their 
day,  that  most  men  derive  their  notions  of 
Christianity.  But  the  treaties  of  European 
nations  still  begin  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  the 
"  Most  Holy  Trinity  "  ;  the  doctrine  is  still  the 
professed  faith  of  every  established  church, 
and,  as  far  as  I  know,  of  every  sect  which  makes 
a  creed  its  bond  of  communion ;  and  if  any 
one  should  recur  to  books,  he  would  find  it 
presented  as  an  all-important  distinction  of 
Christianity  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  Divines. 
It  is,  in  consequence,   viewed  by  most  men, 


yi  PREFACE. 

more  or  less  distinctly,  as  a  part  of  Christianity. 
In  connexion  with  other  doctrines,  as  false  and 
more  pernicious,  it  has  been  moulded  into  sys- 
tems of  religious  belief,  which  have  been  pub- 
licly and  solemnly  substituted  in  the  place  of 
true  religion.  These  systems  have  counteract- 
ed the  whole  evidence  of  divine  revelation. 
The  proof  of  the  most  important  fact  in  the 
history  of  mankind,  that  the  truths  of  religion 
have  not  been  left  to  be  doubtfully  and  dimly 
discerned,  but  have  been  made  known  to  us  by 
God  himself,  has  been  overborne  and  rendered 
ineffectual  by  the  nature  of  the<  doctrines  as- 
cribed to  God.  Hence  it  is,  that  in  many  parts 
of  Europe  scarcely  an  intelligent  and  well- 
informed  Christian  is  left.  It  has  seemed  as 
idle  to  inquire  into  the  evidences  of  those 
systems  which  passed  under  the  name  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  into  the  proof  of  the  incarnations 
of  Vishnu,  or  the  divine  mission  of  Mahomet. 
Nothing  of  the  true  character  of  our  religion, 
nothing  attesting  its  descent  from  Heaven,  was 
to  be  discovered  amid  the  corruptions  of  the 
prevailing  faith.  On  the  contrary,  they  were 
so  marked  with  falsehood  and  fraud,  they  so 
clearly  discovered  the  baseness  of  their  earthly 
origin,  that  when  imposed  upon  men  as  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  those  who 
regarded  them  as  such  were  fairly  relieved  from 


PREFACE.  Vll 

the  necessity  of  inquiring,  whether  they  had 
been  taught  by  God.  The  internal  evidence 
of  Christianity  was  annihilated  ;  and  all  other 
evidence  is  wasted  when  applied  to  prove, 
that  such  doctrines  have  been  revealed  from 
Heaven. 

It  is  true  that  in  England,  in  some  parts  of 
continental  Europe,  and  in  our  own  country,  a 
large  majority  still  desire  the  name  of  Chris- 
tians ;  and  have  a  certain  interest  in  what  they 
esteem  Christianity.  Notwithstanding  much 
infidelity  and  skepticism,  more  or  less  openly 
avowed,  and  notwithstanding  that  many,  who 
call  themselves  Christians,  regard  the  teaching 
of  Christ  only  as  containing,  when  rightly  under- 
stood, an  excellent  system  of  doctrines  and 
duties,  without  ascribing  to  it  more  than  human 
authority,  yet  there  still  exists  much  sincere 
and  enlightened,  as  well  as  much  traditionary 
faith  in  Christianity,  as  a  revelation  from  God. 
In  the  Protestant  countries  to  which  I  have 
referred,  there  has  been  great  freedom  of  in- 
quiry into  its  character;  wise  and  good  men 
have  labored  to  vindicate  it  from  misrepresenta- 
tion; its  evidences  have  been  forcibly  stated; 
the  more  obnoxious  doctrines  connected  with  it 
in  the  popular  creeds  have  not  of  late,  except 
in  this  country,  been  zealously  obtruded  upon 
notice  ;  the  moral  character  required  by  it  has 


Ylll  PREFACE. 

been  partially  at  least  understood  and  incul- 
cated ;  and  imperfectly  and  erroneously  as  our 
religion  may  have  been  taught,  it  has  still  been 
a  main  support  of  public  order  and  private 
morals.  Many  enlightened  men,  therefore,  who 
have  taken  only  a  general  view  of  the  subject, 
and  have  never  given  their  time  or  thoughts  to 
determine  what  Christianity  really  is,  regard 
the  prevailing  form  of  religion  with  a  certain 
degree  of  respect.  Though  they  may  disbe- 
lieve many  of  its  doctrines,  and  have  never 
separated  in  their  own  minds  what  is  true  from 
what  is  false,  they  think  it,  notwithstanding,  the 
part  of  a  prudent  and  benevolent  man  to  let 
the  whole  pass  in  silence.  They  either  do  not 
advert  to  Christianity  at  all;  or  if  they  do,  it  is 
in  ambiguous,  though  respectful  terms,  and  they 
refrain  from  implying  either  their  belief  or  their 
disbelief  of  what  are  represented  as  its  charac- 
teristic doctrines.  There  is  also  another  class 
of  able  and  intellectual  men,  who,  perceiving 
the  value  of  religion  in  general,  sincerely  em- 
brace the  popular  religion  as  they  find  it  in  the 
creed  of  their  church  or  sect ;  being  bound  to 
it,  perhaps,  by  strong  sentiments  and  early  as- 
sociations, and  believing  that  he  who  quits  this 
harbour  must  embark  upon  a  sea  of  uncertainties. 
They  form  a  small  exception  to  the  remarks 
with  which  I  commenced,  respecting  the  preva- 


PREFACE.  IX 

lent  disbelief  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
other  similar  doctrines,  by  the  more  intelligent 
classes  of  society;  —  an  exception  which  does 
not  extend  to  the  ignorant,  or  bigoted,  or  mer- 
cenary defenders  of  a  church  or  sect. 

But  admitting  these  facts,  what,  after  all,  is  the 
prevailing  state  of  opinion  and  feeling  respecting 
Christianity  in  Protestant  countries?  It  is  indi- 
cated by  their  literature.  With  some  con- 
siderable exceptions,  the  productions  of  the 
English  periodical  press  may  be  divided  into 
two  great  classes.  In  one  of  them,  you  rarely 
find  any  thing  implying  a  sincere  belief  and 
interest  in  Christianity ;  you  find  much  that 
an  intelligent  Christian  could  not  have  writ- 
ten ;  and  in  some  of  the  publications  to  be 
arranged  in  this  class,  you  find  many  thinly 
veiled  or  naked  expressions  of  scorn  and 
aversion  for  what  passes  under  its  name,  and 
especially  for  the  established  religion  and  its 
ministers.  In  the  other  class,  you  observe  a 
party  and  political  zeal  for  religion,  the  religion 
established  by  law,  "  the  religion  of  a  gentle- 
man," to  borrow  an  expression  from  Charles  the 
Second,  —  a  zeal  for  the  church  and  its  dignities 
and  emoluments,  a  zeal  that  accommodates  itself 
easily  to  a  lax  system  of  morals,  and  which 
rarely  displays  itself  more  than  in  its  contempt 
for  those  who   regard   religion    as   something 


X  PREFACE. 

about  which  our  reason  is  to  be  exercised. 
But  beside  these  two  classes  of  publications, 
there  is  still  another,  extensively  circulated, 
below  the  notice,  perhaps,  of  those  who  belong 
to  the  aristocracy  of  literature,  but  which  is 
sapping  the  foundations  of  society ;  a  class  of 
publications  addressed  to  the  lower  orders,  in 
which  Christianity  is  openly  attacked,  being 
made  responsible  for  all  the  wickedness,  fraud, 
oppression,  and  cruelty,  that  have  been  perpe- 
trated in  its  name,  and  for  all  the  outrages  upon 
reason  that  have  appeared  in  the  conduct  of  its 
professors,  or  been  embodied  in  creeds.  There 
are  other  proofs  equally  striking  of  the  very 
general  indifference  that  is  really  felt  toward 
Christianity  ;  of  the  little  hold  it  has  upon  men's 
inmost  thoughts  and  affections.  The  most  pop- 
ular English  poet  of  the  day,  who  has  been  the 
object  of  such  passionate  and  ill-judged  admi- 
ration, appeared,  not  merely  as  a  man,  but  as  a 
writer,  under  every  aspect  the  most  adverse  to 
the  Christian  character ;  yet  the  time  has  been, 
when  his  tide  of  fashion  was  at  its  height,  that 
one  could  hardly  remark  upon  his  immorality 
or  profaneness  without  exposing  himself  to  the 
charge  of  being  narrow-minded  or  hypocritical. 
I  observed  not  long  since  in  a  noted  journal, 
the  editor  of  which  is  said  to  be  a  Professor  of 
Moral  Philosophy  at  Edinburgh,  that  he  was 


PREFACE.  XI 

spoken  of  by  a  writer,  fresh  from  the  perusal 
of  his  life  by  Moore,  as  having  been  throughout 
his  whole  course  c  a  noble  being,'  c  morally  and 
intellectually,'  as  all  but  '  the  base  and  blind' 
must  feel.  *  The  patriarch  of  German  litera- 
ture has  just  left  the  world  amid  a  general 
chorus  of  applause  from  his  countrymen,  to 
which  a  dissentient  voice  has  for  some  time 
scarcely  been  tolerated  among  them.  His  pop- 
ularity may  be  compared  with  that  which  Vol- 
taire enjoyed  in  France  during  the  last  century. 
There  may  be  different  opinions  respecting  his 
genius.  He  has  nothing  of  the  brilliant  wit  of 
Voltaire,  nor  of  his  keenness  of  remark ;  and 
nothing  of  the  truly  honest  zeal  in  the  cause  of 
humanity,  which  is  sometimes  discovered  by 
that  very  inconsistent  writer.  No  generous  sen- 
timent ever  prompted  Goethe  to  place  himself 
in  imprudent  opposition  to  any  misuse  of  power. 
The  principles,  which  are  the  foundation  of 
virtue  and  happiness,  were  to  him  as  though 
they  were  not.  His  strongest  sympathies  were 
not  with  the  higher  feelings  of  our  nature.  In 
his  mind  Christianity  was  on  a  level  with  the 
Pagan  mythology,  except  as  being  of  a  harsher 
and  gloomier  character,  and  possessing  less 
poetical  beauty.    In  the  Prologue  to  his  Faust, 

*  The  passage  may  be  found  in  Blackwood's  Magazine  for  Febru- 
ary, 1830,  p.  417. 


Xll  PREFACE. 

he  introduces  in  a  scene,  meant  to  be  ludicrous, 
the  Supreme  Being  as  one  of  his  dramatis  per- 
soius,  with  as  little  reverence  as  Lucian  shows 
toward  Jupiter.  I  cannot  say  what  there  may 
be  in  his  voluminous  works  ;  but  in  those  of  the 
most  note  I  have  never  met  with  the  strong, 
heartfelt  expression  of  a  high  moral  truth  or 
noble  sentiment.  In  reading  some  of  his  more 
popular  productions,  it  may  be  well  to  recollect 
the  words  of  one  incomparably  his  superior; 
Cynicorum  vero  ratio  tota  est  ejicienda ;  est  enim 
inimica  verecundia,  sine  qua  nihil  rectum  esse 
potest,  nihil  honestum.  *  As  regards  the  pro- 
ductions of  such  writers,  it  has  become  the 
cant  of  a  certain  class  of  critics  to  set  aside  the 
consideration  of  their  influence  upon  men's 
principles  and  affections,  and  to  consider  them 
merely  as  productions  of  genius.  In  this  mode 
of  estimation  it  is  forgotten,  that  there  can  be 
no  essential  beauty  opposite  to  moral  beauty, 
and  that  a  work  which  offends  our  best  feelings 
can  have  no  power  over  the  sympathies  of  a 
well-ordered  mind. 

The  same  absence  of  religious  principle  and 
belief  which  characterizes  so  much  of  the  pop- 
ular literature  of  the  day,  appears  also  in  the 
speculations  of  men  of  a  high  order  of  intellect. 

*  "  The  whole  system  of  the  Cynics  is  to  be  rejected,  as  at  war 
with  modesty,  without  which  there  can  be  nothing  right,  nothing 
honorable."     Cicero. 


PREFACE.  Xlll 

It  is  but  a  few  years  since,  that  the  author  of 
the  'Academical  Questions'   was  praised  as  a 
profound  thinker,  in  the  most  able  and  popular 
of  modern  journals,  with   scarcely  a  remark 
upon  the  fact  that  his  speculations  conducted 
directly  to  the  dreary  gulph  of  utter  skepticism. 
That  work  had  its  day,  and  is  forgotten.     I 
have  just  been  turning  over  the  leaves  of  an- 
other,  '  On  the  Origin  and  Prospects  of  Man,' 
by  one  of  the  most  powerful   writers  of  our 
times,  the  author  of  *  Anastasius.'     To   me  it 
appears  only  a  system  of  virtual  atheism.     It 
excludes  all  idea  of  God,  according  to  the  con- 
ceptions formed  of  him  by  a  Christian.     The 
Father  of  the  Universe  equally  disappears  from 
the  later  systems  of  the  most  celebrated  Ger- 
man metaphysicians.     That  which  affects  to  be 
regarded  as  the  higher  philosophy  of  the  age,  is 
as  intelligible  upon  this  point,  though  upon  few 
others,  as  the  system  of  Spinoza.     Though  all- 
seeing  in  its  mists,  it  does  not  discern   the  God 
who  made  the  world  and  all  things  therein,  and 
whose  mercy  is  over  all  his  works.     In  a  large 
proportion   of  writings  which  touch  upon  the 
higher  topics  of  philosophy,  we  perceive  more 
or  less  disbelief  or  disregard  of  what  a  Chris- 
tian must  consider  as  the  great  truths  of  religion. 
No  one  can  read  without  interest  the  work, 
which  just  as  he  was  terminating  his  brilliant 

B 


XIV  PREFACE. 

career,  Sir  Humphrey  Davy  left  as  a  legacy, 
containing  the  last  thoughts  of  a  philosopher. 
Yet  in  this  work,  written  as  life  was  fast  reced- 
ing, instead  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  ■ 
immortality  of  the  conscious  individual,  we  find 
that  his  imagination  rested  on  a  dream,  bor- 
rowed from  Pagan  philosophy,  of  the  pre- 
existence  and  future  glories  of  the  thinking 
principle,  assuming  new  modes  of  being  without 
memory  of  the  past.  It  is  not  simply  to  the 
appearance  of  such  speculations  that  we  are  to 
look  as  characteristic  of  the  age,  but  to  the  fact 
that  their  appearance  excites  so  little  attention, 
that  they  blend  so  readily  with  the  prevailing 
tone  of  its  literature.  I  should  not  be  surprised 
if  some  intelligent  readers  of  the  work  last 
mentioned  should  even  have  forgotten  the  pas- 
sage referred  to. 

Such  being  the  state  of  things,  we  are  led  to 
inquire,  who  are  the  expositors  and  defenders 
of  religion,  and  what  influence  do  they  exert 
upon  public  sentiment  ?  In  England  the  science 
of  theology,  so  far  as  it  is  connected  with 
revealed  religion,  has  fallen  into  general  neglect. 
Of  those  who  treat  its  subjects,  few  deserve 
a  hearing,  and  the  few  who  deserve  cannot 
obtain  it.  A  few  professedly  learned  works 
have  of  late  appeared ;  but  for  the  most  part 
they   are    mere   compilations,    made    without 


PREFACE.  XV 

judgment  or  accuracy,  and  conformed  to  the 
creed  of  the  Church.  There  have  been  some 
bulky  republications  of  old  divines  little  suited 
to  the  wants  of  the  age.  Most  other  religious 
works  that  appear,  are  evidently  intended  only 
for  6  the  religious  public ' ;  a  phrase  that  has 
become  familiar,  and  marks  in  some  degree  the 
character  of  the  times.  Should  they  pass 
beyond  this  narrow  circle,  they  would,  I  fear, 
contribute  nothing  to  render  Christianity  more 
respected.  A  very  different  class  of  writers 
is  required  to  assert  for  religion  its  true  char- 
acter and  authority.  In  Germany  there  is  a 
large  body  of  theologians,  of  whom  the  most 
eminent  have  been  able  and  learned  critics. 
They  have  thrown  much  light  upon  the  history, 
language,  and  contents  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament.  They  have  released 
themselves  from  the  thraldom  of  traditionary 
errors.  But  they  have,  in  many  cases,  substi- 
tuted for  these  errors  the  most  extravagant 
speculations  of  their  own.  Nor,  with  some  ex- 
ceptions, does  the  power  of  Christianity  show 
itself  in  their  writings.  On  the  contrary,  many 
of  them,  being  infected  with  the  spirit  of  infi- 
delity that  prevails  over  the  continent  of  Europe, 
have  regarded  Christianity,  not  as  a  divine  rev- 
elation, but  merely  as  presenting  a  system  of 
doctrines  and  precepts,  for  the  most  part  proba- 


XVI  PREFACE. 

ble  and  useful,  when  relieved  from  the  mass  of 
errors  that  have  been  added  to  what  was  origi- 
nally taught  by  its  founder.  Christianity  thus 
becomes  only  a  popular  name  for  a  certain  set 
of  opinions.  Its  authority  and  value  are  gone. 
The  whole  proof  of  the  doctrines  of  religion,  as 
taught  by  Christ,  consists  solely  in  the  fact  that 
he  was  a  teacher  from  God.  He  did  not  rea- 
son;  he  affirmed.  He  adduced  no  arguments 
but  his  miracles.  Considered  as  a  self-taught 
philosopher,  he  did  nothing  to  advance  human 
knowledge,  for  he  brought  no  new  evidence  for 
any  opinion.  But  considered  as  a  teacher  from 
God,  he  has  provided  the  authority  of  God  for 
the  foundation  of  our  faith. 

In  our  country,  if  I  am  not  deceived  by  feel- 
ings of  private  friendship,  true  Christianity  has 
found  some  of  its  best  defenders.  But  the 
forms  in  which  it  is  presented  throughout  a  great 
part  of  our  land,  and  the  feelings  and  character 
of  many  who  have  pretended  to  be  its  exclu- 
sive disciples,  are  little  adapted  to  procure  it 
the  respect  of  intelligent  men.  They  are  pro- 
ducing infidelity,  and  preparing  the  way  for  its 
extensive  spread.  They  are  giving  to  many  a 
distaste  for  the  very  name  of  religion,  and 
leading  them  to  regard  all  appearance  of  a  reli- 
gious character  with  distrust  or  aversion.  In  no 
other  country  is  the  grossest  and  most  illiberal 


PREFACE.  XV11 

bigotry  so  broadly  exhibited  as  among  ourselves. 
Nowhere  else,  at  the  present  day,  have  so  many 
partisans  of  a  low  order  of  intellect  risen  into 
notice,  through  a  spurious  zeal,  not  for  doc- 
trines, for  these  are  changed  as  convenience 
may  require,  but  for  the  triumph  of  a  sect;  and 
no  other  region  has  of  late  been  ravaged  by 
such  a  moral  pestilence  as,  under  the  name  of 
religion,  has  prevailed  in  some  parts  of  our  land; 
an  insane  fanaticism,  degrading  equally  the  feel- 
ings and  intellect  of  those  affected  by  it.  * 

In  past  times,  the  false  systems  of  religion 
that  have  assumed  the  name  of  Christianity, 
and  ruled  in  its  stead,  have  had  a  certain  adap- 
tation to  the  ignorance,  the  barbarism,  the  low 
state  of  morals,  and  the  perverted  condition  of 
society,  existing  contemporaneously  with  them. 
They  were  some  restraint  upon  vice.  They 
led  man  to  think  of  himself  as  something  more 
than  a  mere  perishing  animal.  Mixed  up  with 
poison  as  they  were,  they  served  as  an  antidote 
to  other  poisons  more  pernicious.  Though 
Christianity  was  obscured  by  thick  clouds,  yet 
a  portion  of  its  light  and  heat  reached  the  earth. 
But  the  time  for  those  systems  has  wholly  past. 

*  If  any  one  should  think  these  expressions  too  strong,  let  him 
make  himself  acquainted  with  the  transactions  which  not  long  since 
were  taking  place  in  the  western  part  of  the  state  of  New  York. 
Authentic  documents  respecting  them  exist ;  but  such  scenes  have 
not  been  confined  to  that  part  of  our  country. 
B* 


XVlll  PREFACE. 

A  wilder  scheme  could  not  be  formed  than  that 
of  reestablishing  the  Catholic  religion  in  France, 
or  calling  a  new  council  of  Dort  to  sanction 
Calvinism  in  Holland,  or  giving  to  Lutheran- 
ism  its  former  power  over  men's  minds  in  Ger- 
many. Their  vitality  is  gone,  except  that  it 
now  and  then  manifests  itself  in  a  convulsive 
struggle.  Yet  zealots  are  still  claiming  for  them 
the  authority  which  belongs  of  right  to  true 
religion;  and  to  the  inquiry  what  Christianity 
is,  the  public,  official  answer,  as  it  may  be  called, 
is  still  returned,  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the 
traditionary  creed  of  some  established  church, 
or  of  some  prevalent  sect ;  that  it  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  grim  decrepitude  of  some  obso- 
lete form  of  faith.  We  are  referred  back  to 
some  one  of  those  systems  that  have  dishonored 
its  name,  counteracted  its  influence,  perverted 
its  sanctions,  inculcated  false  and  inadequate 
conceptions  of  the  religious  character,  and 
formed  broods  of  hypocrites,  fanatics,  and  per- 
secutors ;  that  have  been  made  to  minister  to 
the  lust  of  power,  malignant  passions,  and  crim- 
inal self-indulgence ;  and  that  have  striven,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  to  retard  the  intellectual  and 
moral  improvement  of  men,  seeing  in  it  the 
approach  of  their  own  destruction. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  done  to  give  new  power 
to  the  great  principles  of  religion?     What  is  to 


PREFACE.  XIX 

be  done  to  vindicate  its  true  influence  to  Chris- 
tianity? We  must  vindicate  its  true  character. 
It  must  be  presented  to  men  such  as  it  is.  The 
false  doctrines  connected  with  it,  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  truths  which  it  teaches,  must  be 
swept  away.  It  is  not  enough  that  they  should 
be  secretly  disbelieved ;  they  must  be  openly 
disavowed.  It  must  be  publicly  acknowledged 
that  they  are  utterly  foreign  from  Christianity. 
It  is  not  enough  that  those  who  defend  them 
should  be  disregarded  or  confuted.  They  must 
be  so  confuted  as  to  be  silenced.  Those  who 
would  procure  for  Christianity  its  due  suprem- 
acy in  the  hearts  of  men,  should  feel,  that 
their  first  object  is  so  to  operate  upon  the 
convictions  and  sentiments  of  men,  that  the 
public  sanction  which  has  been  given  to  gross 
misrepresentations  of  it  shall  be  as  publicly 
withdrawn.  In  promoting  the  influence  of 
Christianity,  the  main  duty  of  an  enlightened 
Christian  at  the  present  day  is  to  labor  that  it 
may  be  better  understood.  Till  this  be  effected, 
all  other  exertions,  it  may  be  feared,  if  not  in- 
effectual, will  be  mischievous,  as  prolonging 
the  authority  of  error,  rather  than  establishing 
the  truth. 

But  what  interest  can  a  philosopher  or  a  man 
of  intellect  be  expected  to  take  in  the  squabbles 
of  controversial  divines?     What  impression  is 


XX  PREFACE. 

to  be  produced  upon  indifference,  ignorance, 
traditionary  faith,  bigotry,  and  self-interest,  by 
one  who  has  nothing  to  conjure  with  but  his 
poor  reason?  Why  be  solicitous  to  cure  men 
of  one  folly  on  the  subject  of  religion,  since  it 
is  sure  to  be  replaced  by  another?  To  him 
who  should  propose  such  questions,  I  might 
answer,  that  I  do  not  so  despair  of  mankind. 
I  compare  the  nineteenth  century  with  the 
fifteenth,  and  I  perceive,  that  many  hard  victo- 
ries have  been  won,  and  much  has  been  per- 
manently secured  in  the  cause  of  human  im- 
provement. Truth  and  Reason,  though  they 
work  slowly,  work  surely.  An  abuse  or  an 
error,  after  having  been  a  thousand  times  con- 
futed or  exposed,  at  last  totters  and  falls,  aban- 
doned by  its  defenders ;  and  then 

"  One  spell  upon  the  minds  of  men 
Breaks,  never  to  unite  again." 

The  disputes  of  controversial  divines,  however 
mean  the  intellect,  or  vile  the  temper,  of  many 
who  have  engaged  in  them,  do  in  fact  concern 
the  most  important  truths  and  the  most  perni- 
cious errors.  Having  given  these  answers,  I 
might  then  ask  in  return ;  Why  should  a  Chris- 
tian, with  a  deep-felt  conviction  of  the  efficacy 
of  his  religion  to  promote  the  best  interests  of 
mankind,  be  earnestly  desirous  that  its  influence 
may  not  be  superseded  and  opposed  by  any  of 


PREFACE.  XXI 

those  false  systems  of  doctrine  that  have  been 
substituted  in  its  place  ?  Why  should  one,  not 
devoid  of  common  sympathy  with  his  fellow 
men,  care  whether  they  believe  the  most  enno- 
bling truths,  or  some  pernicious  creed,  respect- 
ing their  God  and  Father,  their  nature  and 
relations  as  immortal  beings,  their  duty,  motives, 
consolations,  and  hopes! 

We  know  the  efforts  that  are  making  by 
enlightened  men  in  Europe,  particularly  in  Eng- 
land, to  spread  intellectual  cultivation  among 
the  uneducated  classes  of  the  old  world.  So 
far  as  the  knowledge  thus  communicated  is 
what  may  be  called  secular,  it  is  beneficial  in 
enlarging  and  exercising  the  mind,  affording 
innocent  entertainment,  and,  in  some  cases, 
furnishing  the  means  of  advancement  in  life. 
But  to  the  poor,  as  to  every  other  class,  it  is  not 
the  knowledge  of  most  value.  Without  the 
equal  diffusion  of  religious  truth,  it  may  become 
an  instrument  of  evil  rather  than  of  good.  Mere 
intellectual  cultivation  is  as  likely  to  be  a  source 
of  discontent  and  disquietude  as  of  happiness. 
An  access  of  knowledge  may  tend  little  to  re- 
concile a  man  to  his  situation.  The  new  power 
it  affords  will  be  used  according  to  the  disposi- 
tion of  him  who  possesses  it.  But  you  can 
impress  no  truth,  you  can  remove  no  error, 
respecting  the  duties  and  hopes  of  man  as  an 


XX11  PREFACE. 

immortal  creature  of  God,  you  can  impress  no 
truth,  you  can  remove  no  error,  concerning  reli- 
gion, without  surely  advancing  men  in  morals 
and  happiness.  This  is  the  instruction  most 
needed  for  all  classes,  but  especially  for  the 
least  informed.  Among  the  highly  educated, 
and  those  accustomed  to  the  refinements  of 
life,  there  are  certain  partial  substitutes  for 
religious  principle  ;  —  the  feeling  of  honor,  the 
desire  of  reputation,  delicacy  of  taste,  the  force 
of  public  opinion,  and  a  more  enlarged  percep- 
tion of  the  sentiments  of  their  fellow-men, 
which,  when  they  act  on  the  conduct  of  others, 
are  generally  on  the  side  of  virtue.  The  levi- 
ties or  the  business  of  life,  a  ceaseless  round  of 
trifling  or  serious  occupation,  which  hurries 
them  on  with  little  leisure  to  think  or  feel  deep- 
ly, may  have  prevented  them  from  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  essential  wants  of  our 
nature.  But  in  preaching  to  the  poor,  not  the 
heartless,  revolting,  debasing  absurdities  of  some 
established  creed,  but  the  doctrines  of  Jesus 
Christ,  we  may  give  them  consolations  and 
hopes  to  be  most  intimately  felt,  new  views  of 
their  nature,  new  motives  and  principles.  It  is 
on  the  diffusion  of  this  sort  of  instruction  among 
all  classes,  that  the  prospects  of  society  now 
depend.  Changes  are  coming  fast  upon  the 
world.     In  the  violent  struggle  of  opposite  in- 


PREFACE.  XX111 

terests,  the  decaying  prejudices  that  have  bound 
men  together  in  the  old  forms  of  society,  are 
snapping  asunder  one  after  another.  Must  we 
look  forward  to  a  hopeless  succession  of  evils, 
in  which  exasperated  parties  will  be  alternately 
victors  and  victims,  till  all  sink  under  some  one 
power  whose  interest  it  is  to  preserve  a  quiet 
despotism?  Who  can  hope  for  a  better  result, 
unless  the  great  lesson  be  learnt,  that  there  can 
be  no  essential  improvement  in  the  condition  of 
society  without  the  improvement  of  men  as 
moral  and  religious  beings;  and  that  this  can 
be  effected  only  by  religious  truth?  To  ex- 
pect this  improvement  from  any  form  of  false 
religion,  because  it  is  called  religion,  is,  as  if  in 
administering  to  one  in  a  fever,  we  were  to  take 
some  drug  from  an  apothecary's  shelves,  satis- 
fied with  its  being  called  medicine. 

That  a  people  may  be  happy  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  civil  liberty,  a  certain  degree  of  knowl- 
edge and  culture  must  be  spread  through  the 
community.  A  general  system  of  education 
must  be  established.  Self-restraint  must  supply 
the  place  of  external  coercion.  The  legitimate 
purpose  of  government  is  to  guard  the  rights  of 
individuals  and  the  community  from  injury;  and 
the  best  form  of  government  is  that  which  effects 
this  purpose  with  the  least  power,  and  is  least 
likely  therefore  to  afford  the  means  of  misrule 


XXIV  PREFACE. 

and  oppression.  But  the  power  not  conceded  to 
the  government  must  be  supplied  by  the  force  of 
moral  principle  and  sentiment  in  the  governed. 
What  education,  then,  is  required;  what  knowl- 
edge is  to  be  communicated ;  what  culture  is 
necessary?  I  answTer,  not  alone,  nor  princi- 
pally, that  education  which  the  schoolmaster 
may  give ;  but  moral  culture,  the  knowledge  of 
our  true  interests  and  relations.  There  may  be 
much  intellectual  culture  which  will  not  tend 
even  indirectly  to  form  men  to  the  ready  prac- 
tice of  their  duties,  or  to  bind  them  together  in 
mutual  sympathy  and  forbearance,  unless  it  be 
united  with  just  conceptions  of  our  nature  and 
the  objects  of  action.  Let  us  form  in  fancy  a 
nation  of  mathematicians  like  La  Place  or  La 
Lande,  ostentatious  of  their  atheism  ;  naturalists 
as  irreligious  and  impure  as  BufFon;  artists  as 
accomplished  as  David,  the  friend  of  Robes- 
pierre ;  philosophers,  like  Hobbes  and  Mande- 
ville,  Helvetius  and  Diderot;  men  of  genius, 
like  Byron,  Goethe,  and  Voltaire  ;  orators  as 
powerful  and  profligate  as  Mirabeau ;  and  hav- 
ing placed  over  them  a  monarch  as  able  and 
unprincipled  as  the  second  Frederic  of  Prussia, 
let  us  consider  what  would  be  the  condition  of 
this  highly  intellectual  community,  and  how 
many  generations  might  pass  before  it  were  laid 
waste  by  gross  sensuality  and  ferocious  pas- 


PREFACE.  XXV 

sions.  So  far  only  as  men  are  impressed  with 
a  sense  of  their  relations  to  each  other,  to  God, 
and  to  eternity,  are  they  capable  of  liberty  and 
the  blessings  of  social  order.  The  great  truths 
that  most  concern  us  are  those  on  which  our 
characters  must  be  formed.  But  religion  is  the 
science  that  treats  of  the  relations  of  man  as 
a  responsible,  immortal  being,  the  creature  of 
God.  By  teaching  the  truth  concerning  them, 
religion,  properly  so  called,  discloses  to  us  the 
ends  of  our  being,  preparing  men,  by  virtue  and 
happiness  here,  for  eternal  progress  in  virtue 
and  happiness  hereafter.  So  far  as  what  bears 
the  name  of  religion  teaches  falsehoods  con- 
cerning them,  it  becomes  the  ally  of  evil,  coun- 
teracting the  improvement  of  our  race.  False 
religion  has  been  the  common  sign,  and  often 
the  most  efficient  cause,  of  the  corruption  and 
misery  of  nations.  All  great  changes  in  the 
constitution  of  society  for  the  purpose  of  deliv- 
ering men  from  traditionary  abuses,  must  be 
accompanied  with  a  correspondent  advance  in 
religious  knowledge,  or  they  will  be  made  in 
vain.  Where  the  principles  of  Christianity  are 
operative,  there  only  can  men  be  released  from 
the  strong  control  of  some  superior  power ; 
which,  however  profligately  exercised,  may  find 
its  own  interest  in  preserving  quiet  among  its 
subjects.     True  Christianity  urges  the  perform- 


XXVI  PREFACE. 

ance  of  the  duties  of  man  to  man,  by  the  noblest 
and  most  effectual  motives ;  and  in  a  community 
where  its  influence  were  generally  felt,  how  little 
would  there  be  to  apprehend  from  public  oppres- 
sion or  private  wrong  1  Where  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  liberty.  I  apply  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which 
he  used  them ;  but  in  one,  the  truth  of  which 
he  would  have  recognised.  In  regarding  the 
condition  and  changes  of  societies  and  nations, 
we  are  apt  to  look  rather  to  the  immediate 
occasions  of  events,  than  to  their  radical  and 
efficient  causes.  A  mere  worldly  politician, 
for  instance,  might  think  it  scarcely  worth  con- 
sideration, that  the  established  church  should 
impose  a  creed,  which  a  majority  of  its  clergy 
do  not  believe  ;  or  that  oaths,  not  meant  to  be 
regarded,  but  enforced  as  a  traditionary  cere- 
mony, and  subscriptions,  to  which  the  con- 
science can  hardly  be  cheated  into  assenting, 
should  stand  in  the  path  of  advancement  in 
church  and  state.  To  a  philosopher  it  may 
appear  of  far  greater  moment.  Other  topics, 
more  exciting  to  the  generality,  he  might  deem 
of  secondary  importance.  This  he  might  view 
as  a  deep-seated  evil,  working  at  the  core,  the 
natural  progress  of  which  would  leave  but  a 
false  and  hollow  show  of  religion  and  morals. 
Who  is  there,  that  will  deny  the  influence  of 


PREFACE.  XXV11 

true  religion  to  promote  the  happiness  of  indi- 
viduals and  the  good  order  of  society  ?  Who  is 
there  that  will  deny  the  mischiefs  of  supersti- 
tion, false  notions  of  God  and  our  duty,  bigotry, 
and  what  is  produced  as  their  counterpart, 
irreligion  and  atheism  ?  Why  is  it,  then,  that 
many  are  so  little  solicitous  to  discriminate,  on 
this  most  important  subject,  truth  from  false- 
hood; that  they  fancy  they  are  giving  their 
countenance  to  the  former,  while  supporting  the 
latter ;  and  that  if  they  aid  the  cause  of  what  is 
called  religion,  they  do  not  stop  to  inquire, 
whether  it  be  the  religion  that  exalts,  or  the 
religion  that  degrades? 

In  the  present  state  of  information  and  pub- 
lic sentiment,  it  will  be  vain  to  attempt  to  give 
authority  to  false  religion.  The  zeal  of  parti- 
sans, or  the  power  of  the  state,  will  be  equally 
ineffectual.  The  only  important  consequence 
of  such  attempts  will  be  to  disgust  men  with  all 
religion.  The  experiment  has,  in  one  instance, 
been  carried  through.  In  France  the  forcing 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  upon  the  nation 
ended  in  the  overthrow  of  all  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity. The  consequences  that  ensued  had 
the  effect,  elsewhere,  of  frightening  infidels  into 
hypocrites  and  bigots ;  and  a  sudden  show  of 
religion  followed  the  French  Revolution.  But 
from  this,  had  it  continued,  as  little  was  to  be 


XXV111  PREFACE. 

hoped,  as  from  a  procession  with  reliques  and 
images  going  forth  to  stop  a  stream  of  lava  in 
its  course.  It  is  only  to  true  religion,  that  we 
must  look  for  aid  in  the  cause  of  human  happi- 
ness. This  alone,  being  in  accordance  with 
reason  and  with  our  natural  sentiments,  will 
find  its  way  to  the  hearts  of  men. 

The  tract  which  follows  in  relation  to  some 
of  those  false  doctrines  that  have  prevailed, 
though  it  will  give  no  new  conviction  to  the 
great  body  of  enlightened  men,  may,  perhaps, 
awaken  the  attention  of  some  to  the  grossness 
of  those  corruptions  that  have  been  connected 
with  Christianity,  and  to  the  necessity  of  pre- 
senting it  in  a  purer  form,  if  its  influence  is  to 
be  preserved.  It  may  tend  a  little  to  swell  the 
flood  of  public  sentiment  by  which  they  must 
be  swept  away.  It  may  perhaps  serve  to  con- 
vince some  who  have  looked  with  offence  upon 
the  absurdities  taught  as  Christian  doctrines, 
and  mistaken  them  for  such,  that  one  may  be  a 
very  earnest  believer,  whose  respect  for  such 
doctrines  is  as  little  as  their  own.  But,  espe- 
cially, it  may  serve  to  spread  a  knowledge  of 
the  truth  among  those  who,  from  their  habits  of 
life,  have  wanted  leisure  to  think  and  examine 
for  themselves  upon  subjects  of  this  nature; 
and  who  are  obliged,  as  all  of  us  are  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  to  take  many  opinions  upon 


PREFACE.  XXIX 

authority,  till  they  see  reason  to  distrust  the 
authority  on  which  they  have  relied.  In  ad- 
dressing myself  to  such  readers,  I  may  take  the 
credit  (it  is  but  small)  of  having  avoided  a  fault 
common  in  theological  writings  intended  for 
popular  use.  I  have  not  presumed  upon  their 
ignorance  of  the  subject;  I  have  not  made 
statements  which  in  a  more  learned  discussion 
I  should  be  ashamed  to  urge ;  I  have  given  no 
explanations  that  I  knew  to  be  unsatisfactory, 
because  they  might  seem  plausible  ;  I  have 
made  no  propositions  which  I  do  not  fully  be- 
lieve ;  I  have  urged  no  arguments  but  what 
have  brought  conviction  to  my  own  mind ;  I 
have  written  as  one  who,  being  fully  persuaded 
himself,  and  regarding  his  subject  as  free  from 
all  doubt  and  difficulty,  is  satisfied  that  nothing 
more  is  to  be  done  than  to  explain  to  others 
in  intelligible  language  the  views  which  are 
present  to  his  own  mind. 

I  have  given  one  reason  why  it  is  little  to  my 
taste  to  discuss  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
Whoever  treats  of  the  subject  is  liable  to  be 
confounded  with  a  class  of  writers  with  whom 
an  intelligent  Christian  would  not  willingly  be 
thought  to  have  any  thing  in  common.  By 
many  who  look  with  indifference  on  the  whole 
discussion,  he  who  contends  for  the  truth  will 
be  placed  on  a  level  with  those  who  defend 


XXX  PREFACE. 

error.  Others  will  think  that  he  is  agitating 
questions  which  might  better  be  left  at  rest ; 
and  those  who  hold  the  traditionary  belief  will 
regard  him  as  a  disturber  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity. It  may,  however,  be  a  consolation  to 
him  to  remember,  that  even  Socrates,  —  the 
great  opposer  of  the  sophists  and  false  teachers 
of  his  day,  —  was  called  XdXos  xal  ftiouos,  prat- 
ing and  turbulent,  *  and  that  the  very  same 
epithets,  by  a  singular  coincidence,  were  applied 
to  Locke,  f  the  most  enlightened  theologian  of 
his  age  and  nation.  The  feeling,  however, 
naturally  arising  from  the  causes  I  have  men- 
tioned, might  prevent  one  from  engaging  in  this 
controversy,  were  it  not  for  the  deep  sense 
which  a  sincere  Christian  must  have  of  the 
value  of  true  Christianity,  and  of  the  necessity 
of  redeeming  it  from  the  imputations  to  which 
it  has  been  exposed.  "  'Love,''  says  one  of  our 
old  poets,  '  esteems  no  office  mean,''  and  with 
still  more  spirit,  '  Entire  affection  scorneth  nicer 
hands,'' "  J 

But  there  are  other  causes  which  make  this 
an  unpleasant  subject.  It  presents  human  na- 
ture under  the  most  humiliating  aspect.  The 
absurdities  that  have  been  maintained  are  so 


*  V.  Plutarch,  in  Catone.    t  By  Wood,  in  his '  Athenae  Oxonienses. 
X  These  quotations  from  Spenser  have  thus  been  brought  together 
by  Burke. 


PREFACE.  XXXI 

gross,  the  zeal  in  maintaining  them  has  been  so 
ferocious,  there  is  such  an  absence  of  any  re- 
deeming quality  in  the  spectacle  presented,  that 
it  spreads  a  temporary  gloom  over  our  whole 
view  of  the  character  and  destiny  of  man.  We 
seem  ourselves  to  sink  in  the  scale  of  being, 
and  it  demands  an  effort  to  recollect  the  glo- 
rious powers  with  which  God  has  endued  our 
race.  While  inquiring  concerning  the  truths  of 
religion,  we  appear  to  have  descended  to  some 
obscure  region  where  folly  and  prejudice  are  the 
sole  rulers.  We  may  remember,  with  a  feeling 
of  painful  oppression,  the  mortifying  language  of 
Hume,  in  one  of  those  tracts  in  which  he  specu- 
lates as  coldly  upon  the  nature  and  hopes  of 
mankind,  as  if  he  were  a  being  of  another  sphere, 
bound  to  us  by  no  common  sympathies.  "All 
popular  theology,  especially  the  scholastic,  has 
a  kind  of  appetite  for  absurdity  and  contradic- 
tion. If  that  theology  went  not  beyond  reason 
and  common  sense,  her  doctrines  would  appear 
too  easy  and  familiar.  Amazement  must  of 
necessity  be  raised :  Mystery  affected :  Dark- 
ness and  obscurity  sought  after:  And  a  founda- 
tion of  merit  afforded  to  the  devout  votaries, 
who  desire  an  opportunity  of  subduing  their 
rebellious  reason  by  the  belief  of  the  most  un- 
intelligible sophisms."  "  To  oppose  the  torrent 
of  scholastic  religion  by  such  feeble  maxims  as 


XXX11  PREFACE. 

these,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  same  thing  to 
be  and  not  to  be,  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  a 
part,  that  two  and  three  make  five,  is  pretending 
to  stop  the  ocean  with  a  bulrush."  And  is  this 
all  that  mankind  have  to  hope?  Must  this 
dreary  prospect  for  ever  lie  before  us  ?  Is  this 
all  that  religion  has  been,  and  all  that  it  is  to  be  1 
We  trust  not.  Still,  in  the  confutation  of  such 
doctrines  as  have  been  taught,  the  triumph,  if  it 
may  be  so  called,  is  humbling.  It  is  a  triumph 
over  our  common  nature  reduced  to  imbecility. 
We  discover  not  how  strong  human  reason  is, 
but  now  weak.  That  it  can  confute  them  im- 
plies no  power;  that  it  has  been  enslaved  in 
their  service  makes  us  feel,  almost  with  appre- 
hension, how  far  it  may  be  debased.  But  the 
hold  which  the  doctrines  of  false  religion  have 
had  upon  the  hearts  of  men  has  never  been 
proportioned  to  the  extent  in  which  they  have 
been  professed.  The  truths  of  Christianity 
have  maintained  a  constant  struggle  with  the 
opposite  errors  that  have  been  connected  with 
them.  At  the  present  time  there  are  many  who 
acquiesce  in  these  errors,  and  who  even  regard 
them  with  traditionary  respect,  in  whose  minds 
they  lie  inert  and  harmless. 

But  the  very  circumstance  last  mentioned  adds 
to  the  unpleasant  character  of  the  discussion  that 
follows.     Every  one  in  his  writings  sometimes 


P  HE  FACE.  XXX111 

turns  his  thoughts  to  those  individuals,  whose 
approbation  would  give  him  most  pleasure,  and 
whose  good  opinion  he  would  most  desire  to  con- 
firm. Among  those  to  whom  my  thoughts  recur, 
there  are  friends  from  whom  I  can  hope  for  no 
sympathy  in  my  present  task.  A  difference  of 
opinion  upon  this  or  any  other  subject  cannot 
lessen  my  respect  or  love  for  them  ;  and  should 
the  present  work  chance  to  fall  in  their  way,  I 
could  almost  wish  to  know,  that  this  were  the 
only  paragraph  that  had  fixed  their  attention. 
I  beg  them  to  believe  that  I  am  no  zealot,  no 
partisan  of  a  sect,  no  disturber  of  social  inter- 
course by  a  spirit  of  proselytism  ;  and  that  where 
I  see  the  fruits  of  true  religion,  I  have  no  wish 
to  conform  the  faith  from  which  they  proceed 
to  the  standard  of  my  own.  The  same  opin- 
ions, true  or  false,  may  be  held  in  a  very  differ- 
ent temper,  with  very  different  associations,  and 
with  very  different  effects  upon  character.  The 
doctrines  most  pernicious  in  their  general  re- 
sults, may  be  innoxious  in  many  particular  cases. 
The  same  system  of  faith  which  established  its 
autos  de  fe  in  Spain,  numbering  its  victims  by 
tens  of  thousands,  and  sinking  that  country  to  the 
lowest  debasement,  may  have  been  consistent 
in  Fenelon  with  every  virtue  under  heaven. 

I  have  but  a  few  words   more  to  say  in  this 
connexion.     The  tract  that  follows  relates  only 


XXXI V  PREFACE. 

to  one  class  of  those  false  doctrines  that  have 
been  represented  as  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
There  are  others  equally  or  more  important. 
To  reestablish  true  Christianity  must  be  a  work 
of  long  and  patient  toil,  to  be  effected  far  more 
by  the  general  diffusion  of  religious  knowledge, 
than  by  direct  controversy.  The  views  and 
results  to  which  a  few  intelligent  scholars  may 
have  arrived,  must  be  made  the  common  prop- 
erty of  the  community.  Essential  and  invete- 
rate errors  present  themselves  in  every  depart- 
ment of  Christian  theology.  False  religion  has 
thrown  its  veil  over  the  character,  and  perverted 
the  meaning,  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  Of  the  immense  mass  of  volumes 
concerning  revealed  religion,  there  is  but  a 
scanty  number,  in  which  some  erroneous  sys- 
tem does  not  form  the  basis  of  what  is  taught. 
In  many  of  the  most  important  branches  of  in- 
quiry, a  common  Christian  can  find  no  trust- 
worthy and  sufficient  guide.  Of  the  multitude 
of  topics  more  immediately  connected  with 
Christianity,  there  is  scarcely  one  which  does 
not  require  to  be  examined  anew  from  its  foun- 
dation, and  discussed  in  a  manner  very  different 
from  what  it  has  been.  Religion  must  be  taken, 
I  will  not  say  out  of  the  hands  of  priests, — 
that  race  is  passing  away,  —  but  out  of  the 
hands  of  divines,  such  as  the  generality  of  di- 


PREFACE.  XXXV 

vines  have  been  ;  and  its  exposition  and  defence 
must  become  the  study  of  philosophers,  as  being 
the  highest  philosophy.  Some  degree  of  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  is  necessary,  to  be  aware  of  the 
general  and  gross  ignorance  that  exists  con- 
cerning almost  every  subject  connected  with 
our  faith.  But  they  who  would  communicate 
the  instruction  which  is  so  much  needed,  must 
expect  to  be  continually  impeded  and  resisted 
by  prejudice  and  misapprehension.  Let  them, 
however,  understand  their  task  and  qualify 
themselves  for  it.  In  the  present  state  of  opin- 
ion in  the  world,  it  is  evident  that  he  is  assum- 
ing a  responsibility  for  which  he  is  wholly  unfit, 
who  comes  forward  as  a  teacher  or  defender  of 
Christianity,  without  having  prepared  himself 
by  serious  thought  and  patient  study.  The 
traditionary  believer,  if  he  have  taken  this  re- 
sponsibility upon  himself,  should  stop  in  his 
course,  till  he  has  ascertained  whether  he  is 
doing  good  or  evil.  A  conflict  between  religion 
and  irreligion  has  begun,  which  may  not  soon 
be  ended ;  and  in  this  conflict,  Christianity  must 
look  for  aid,  not  to  zealots,  but  to  scholars  and 
philosophers.  Our  age  is  not  one  in  which 
there  can  be  an  esoteric  doctrine  for  the  intel- 
ligent, and  an  exoteric  for  the  uninformed.  The 
public  profession  of  systems  of  faith  by  Chris- 
tian nations  and  churches,  which  are  not  the 


XXXVI  PREFACE. 

faith  of  the  more  enlightened  classes  of  society, 
has  produced  a  state  of  things  that,  it  would 
seem,  cannot  long  continue.  We  may  hope 
that  in  Protestant  countries  its  result  will  not  be, 
as  it  was  in  France,  general  infidelity.  We 
may  hope  that  it  will  not  end  in  a  mere  struggle 
between  fanaticism  and  irreligion,  as  seems  to 
be  the  tendency  of  things  in  some  parts  of  our 
own  country.  But  these  results  can  be  pre- 
vented only  by  awakening  men's  minds  to  in- 
quire, What  Christianity  is?  How  far  it  has 
been  misrepresented?  What  are  its  evidences? 
What  is  its  value  ?  And  what  is  to  be  done  to 
remove  those  errors  which  now  deprive  it  of  its 
power? 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

PREFACE iii 


SECTION  I. 
Purpose  of  this  Work 1 


SECTION  II. 

The  proper  Modern  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  contra- 
dictory IN  TERMS    TO  THAT  OF  THE  UNITY   OF  GOD. 

Forms  in  which  the  Doctrine  has  been  stated, 
with  Remarks.  —  The  Doctrine  that  Christ  is 
both  God  and  Man,  a  Contradiction  in  Terms. — 
No  Pretence  that  either  Doctrine  is  expressly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures.  —  The  Mode  of  their 
supposed  Proof  wholly  by  way  of  Inference. 


SECTION  III. 

The  Proposition,  that  Christ  is  God,  proved  to  be 
false  from  the  Scriptures 25 


SECTION  IV. 

On  the  Origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.    .    51 
D 


XXXV111  CONTENTS. 


SECTION  V. 


Concerning  the  History   of   the   Doctrine   of   the 
Hypostatic  Union 62 


SECTION  VI. 

Difficulties  that  mat  remain  in  some  Minds  re- 
specting the  Passages  of  Scripture  alleged  by 
Trinitarians 


SECTION  VII. 

On  the  Principles  of  the   Interpretation  of  Lan- 
guage  90 


SECTION  VIII. 

Fundamental  Principle  of  Interpretation  violated 
by  Trinitarian  Expositors.  No  Proposition  can 
be  incomprehensible,  in  itself  considered,  from 
the  Nature  of  the  Ideas  expressed  by  it.       ...  106 


SECTION  IX. 

Explanations  of  particular  Passages   of  the  New 
Testament,  adduced  by  Trinitarians 123 

Class  I.    Interpolated  and  Corrupted  Passages.      .     131 

Class  II.     Passages  relating  to  Christ,   which  have 
been  mistranslated 1*** 

Class   III.     Passages  relating  to  God,  which  have 
been  incorrectly  applied  to  Christ I45 


CONTENTS.  XXXIX 

Class  IV.  Passages  that  might  be  considered  as  re- 
ferring to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  supposing  it 
capable  of  proof  and  proved,  but  which  in  themselves 
present  no  appearance  of  any  proof  or  intimation  of  it.  152 

Of  Prayer  to  Christ 157 

On  the  Preexistence  of  Christ 169 

Class  V.  Passages  relating-  to  the  divine  authority  of 
Christ  as  the  minister  of  God,  to  the  manifestation  of 
divine  power  in  his  miracles  and  in  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity,  and  to  Christianity  itself,  spoken 
of  under  the  name  of  Christ,  and  considered  as  a  pro- 
mulgation of  the  laws  of  God's  moral  government,  — 
which  have  been  misinterpreted  as  proving  that 
Christ  himself  is  God 185 

Class  VI.  Passages  misinterpreted  through  inatten- 
tion to  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  modes  of 
expression  in  the  New  Testament 314 

Class  VII.  Passages,  in  the  senses  assigned  to  which, 
not  merely  the  fundamental  Rule  of  Interpretation, 
explained  in  Section  VIII.,  is  violated,  but  the  most 
obvious  and  indisputable  Characteristics  of  Lan- 
guage are  disregarded 227 

Class  VIII.    The  Introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel.    229 

SECTION  X. 
Illustrations  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Logos.       .    .    251 

SECTION  XL 
Conclusion 289 


APPENDIX 297 


ERRATA. 


Page  68,  line  22,  for  252  read  251. 
"  108,  "  6,  "  t  he  "  the. 
"   168,    "    31,    "     b.    «    lb. 


STATEMENT   OF   REASONS. 


SECTION  I. 


PURPOSE  OF  THIS  WORK. 


I  propose,  in  what  follows,  to  give  a  view  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Trinitarians,  respecting  the  nature  of  God  and 
the  person  of  Christ ;  to  state  the  reasons  for  not  be- 
lieving those  doctrines  ;  and  to  show  in  what  manner 
the  passages  of  Scripture  urged  in  their  support,  ought 
to  be  regarded. 


SECTION  II. 

THE  PROPER  MODERN    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY    CONTRA- 
DICTORY IN  TERMS  TO    THAT     OF    THE    UNITY  OF     GOD.  

FORMS  IN  WHICH   THE  DOCTRINE  HAS  BEEN  STATED,    WITH 

REMARKS.  THE  DOCTRINE     THAT    CHRIST    IS     BOTH    GOD 

AND    MAN,  A    CONTRADICTION  IN    TERMS.  NO  PRETENCE 

THAT     EITHER    DOCTRINE     IS    EXPRESSLY    TAUGHT    IN  THE 

SCRIPTURES.  THE     MODE     OF     THEIR     SUPPOSED     PROOF 

WHOLLY  BY  WAY  OF  INFERENCE. 

The  proper  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  creeds  of  latter  times,  is,  that  there  are 
three  persons  in  the  Divinity,  who  equally  possess  all 
divine  attributes  ;  and  the  doctrine  is  connected  with  an 
explicit  statement  that  there  is  but  one  God.  Now,  this 
doctrine  is  to  be  rejected,  because  taken  in  connexion 
with  that  of  the  unity  of  God,  it  is  essentially  incredible  ; 
one,  which  no  man  who  has  compared  the  two  doctrines 
together  with  right  conceptions  of  both,  ever  did,  or  ever 
could  believe.  Three  persons,  each  equally  possessing 
divine  attributes,  are  three  Gods.  A  person  is  a  being. 
No  one  who  has  any  correct  notion  of  the  meaning  of 
words  will  deny  this.  And  the  being  who  possesses 
divine  attributes  must  be  God  or  a  God.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  then,  affirms  that  there  are  three  Gods. 
It  is  affirmed  at   the  same  time,   that  there  is  but  one 


MODERN    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  3 

God.     But  no  one   can  believe   that  there    are    three 
Gods,  and  that  there  is  but  one  God. 

This  statement  is  as  plain  and  obvious  as  any  which 
can  be  made.  But  it  is  not  the  less  forcible,  because  it 
is  perfectly  plain  and  obvious.  Some  Trinitarians  have 
indeed  remonstrated  against  charging  those  who  hold 
the  doctrine  with  the  "  absurdities  consequent  upon 
the  language  of  their  creed  ;"  #  and  have  asserted  that 
in  this  creed,  the  word  person  is  not  used  in  its  proper 
sense.  I  do  not  answer  to  this,  that  if  men  will  talk 
absurdity,  and  insist  that  they  are  teaching  truths  of 
infinite  importance,  it  is  unreasonable  for  them  to  ex- 
pect to  be  understood  as  meaning  something  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  what  their  words  express.  The  true  answer 
is,  that  these  complaints  are  unfounded  ;  and  that  the 
proper  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  has  existed  in 
latter  times,  is  that  which  is  expressed  by  the  language 
used  taken  in  its  obvious  sense.  By  person,  says 
Waterland,  than  whom  no  waiter  in  defence  of  the  Trin- 
ity has  a  higher  reputation,  "  I  certainly  mean  a  real 
Person,  an  Hypostasis,  no  Mode,  Attribute,  or  Prop- 
erty. Each  divine  Person  is  an  individual,  intelligent 
Agent  ;  but  as  subsisting  in  one  undivided  substance? 
they  are  all  together,  in  that  respect,  but  one  undivided 
intelligent  Agent.  The  church  never  professed  three 
Hypostases,  in  any  other  sense,  but  as  they  mean  three 
Persons."  f  There  is,  indeed,  no  reasonable  pretence 
for  saying,   that   the  great  body  of  Trinitarians,  when 

*  The  words  quoted  are  from  Professor  Stuart's  Letters    to   the 
Rev.  W.  E.  Channing,  p.  23,  2d  edit. 

t  Vindication  of  Christ's  Divinity,  pp.  350,  351 


4  ANCIENT    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

they  have  used  the  word  person,  have  not  meant  to 
express  proper  personality.  He  who  asserts  the  con- 
trary, asserts  a  mere  extravagance.  He  closes  his  eyes 
upon  an  obvious  fact,  and  then  affirms  what  he  may 
fancy  ought  to  have  been,  instead  of  what  there  is  no 
doubt  really  has  been  maintained.  But  on  this  subject 
there  is  something  more  to  be  said  ;  and  I  shall  remark 
particularly,  not  only  upon  this,  but  upon  the  other 
evasions  which  have  been  resorted  to,  in  order  to  escape 
the  force  of  the  statement  which  has  just  been  urged. 

I  wish,  however,  first  to  observe,  that  the  ancient 
opinions  concerning  the  Trinity,  before  the  council  of 
Nice  (A.  D.  325)  were  very  different  from  the 
modern  doctrine,  and  had  this  great  advantage  over  it, 
that  when  viewed  simply  in  connexion  with  the  unity  of 
God,  they  were  not  essentially  incredible.  According  to 
that  form  of  faith  which  approached  nearest  to  the 
modern  Orthodox  doctrine,  the  Father  alone  was  the 
Supreme  God,  and  the  Son  and  Spirit  were  beings  de- 
riving their  existence  from  him,  and  far  inferior,  to  whom 
the  title  of  God  could  be  properly  applied  only  in  an 
inferior  sense.  The  subject  has  been  so  thoroughly 
examined,  that  the  correctness  of  this  statement  will  not, 
I  think,  be  questioned,  at  the  present  day,  by  any  re^ 
spectable  writer.  The  theological  student,  who  wishes 
to  see  in  a  small  compass  the  authorities  on  which  it  is 
founded,  may  consult  one  or  more  of  the  works  men- 
tioned in  the  note  below.*     I  have  stated  that  form  of 

*  Petavii  Dogmata  Theologica,  Tom.  II.  De  Trinitate  ;  particular-. 
ly  I4b.  I.  capp.  3,  4,  5,  —  Huetii  Origeni&na.  Lib.  II.    Qusest.  3, 


ANCIENT   DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  5 

the  doctrine  which  approached  nearest  to  modern  Ortho- 
doxy. But  the  subject  of  the  personality  and  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  may  be  observed,  was  in  a  very 
unsettled  state  before  the  council  of  Constantinople, 
(A.  D.  383.)  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  Eulogy  of 
Athanasius,  has  the  following  passage,  respecting  that 
great  father  of  Trinitarian  Orthodoxy.  "For  when  all 
others  who  held  our  doctrine  were  divided  into  three 
classes,  the  faith  of  many  being  unsound  respecting  the 
Son,  that  of  still  more  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit  (on 
which  subject  to  be  least  impious  was  thought  to  be 
piety) ,  and  a  small  number  being  sound  in  both  respects  ; 
he  first  and  alone,  or  with  a  very  few,  had  the  courage 
to  profess  in  writing,  clearly  and  explicitly,  the  true  doc- 
trine of  the  one  Godhead  and  nature  of  the  three  per- 
sons. Thus  that  truth,  a  knowledge  of  which,  as  far  as 
regards  the  Son,  had  been  vouchsafed  to  most  of  the 
Fathers  before,  he  was  finally  inspired  to  maintain  in  re- 
spect to  the  Holy  Spirit."  * 

So  much  for  the  original  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  I 
shall  now  proceed  to  state  the  different  forms,  which 
the  modern  doctrine  has  been  made  to  assume,  and  in 
which  its  language  has  been  explained,  by  those  who 
have  attempted  to  conceal  or  remove  the  direct  oppo- 
sition between  this  and  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God. 

—  Jackson's  edition  of  Novatian,  with  his  annotations.  —  Whitby, 
Disquisitiones  Modestae  in  CI.  Bulli  Defensionem  Fidei  Nica3nie. — 
Whiston's  Primitive  Christianity,  Vol.  IV. —  Clarke's  Scripture 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  —  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions, 
Vol.  II.  —  Miinscher's  Dogmengeschichte,  I.  §  ij  85  —  111. 

*  Orat.  21.     Opp.  I.  394. 
1* 


O  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

I.  Many  Trinitarian  writers  have  maintained  a  mod- 
ification of  the  doctrine,  in  some  respects  similar  to  what 
has  just  been  stated  to  be  its  most  ancient  form.  They 
have  considered  the  Father  as  the  "  fountain  of  di- 
vinity," whose  existence  alone  is  underived,  and  have 
regarded  the  Son  and  Spirit,  as  deriving  their  existence 
from  him  and  subordinate  to  him  ;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  as  equally  with  the  Father  possessing  all  divine 
attributes.  Every  well  informed  Trinitarian  has  at  least 
heard  of  the  Orthodoxy  and  learning  of  Bishop  Bull. 
His  Defence  of  the  Nicene  Creed  is  the  standard  work 
as  regards  the  argument  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  from  Ecclesiastical  History.  But  one  whole 
division  of  this  famous  book  is  employed  in  maintain- 
ing the  subordination  of  the  Son.  "  No  one  can 
doubt,"  he  says,  "  that  the  Fathers  who  lived  before  the 
Nicene  Council  acknowledged  this  subordination.  It 
remains  to  show  that  the  Fathers  who  wrote  after  this 
council,  taught  the  same  doctrine."  #  Having  given 
various  quotations  from  different  writers  to  this  effect, 
he  proceeds ;  "  The  ancients,  as  they  regarded  the 
Father  as  the  beginning,  cause,  author,  fountain,  of  the 
Son,  have  not  feared  to  call  Him,  the  one  and  only  God. 
For  thus  the  Nicene  Fathers  themselves  begin  their 
creed  ;  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  omnipotent ; 
afterwards  subjoining ;  and  in  one  [Lord]  Jesus 
Christ,  —  God  of  God.  And  the  great  Athanasius 
himself  concedes,  that  the  Father  is  justly  called  the  only 
God,  because  he  alone  is  without  origin,  and  is  alone  the 
fountain  of  divinity."  f     Bishop  Bull  next  proceeds  to 

*  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaense,  Sect.  IV.  cap.  i.  §  3. 
f  Ibid.  §.6. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  7 

maintain  as  the  catholic  doctrine,  that  though  the  Son 
is  equal  to  the  Father  in  nature  and  every  essential 
perfection,  yet  the  Father  is  greater  than  the  Son  even 
as  regards  his  divinity  ;  because  the  Father  is  the  origin 
of  the  Son  ;  the  Son  being  from  the  Father,  and  not  the 
Father  from  the  Son.  Upon  this  foundation,  he  appears 
to  think  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  may  be 
preserved  inviolate,  though  at  the  same  time  he  con- 
tends that  the  Son,  as  a  real  person,  distinct  from  the 
Father,  is  equally  God,  possessing  equally  all  divine 
perfections,  the  only  difference  being  that  the  perfections 
as  they  exist  in  the  Son  are  derived,  and  as  they  exist 
in  the  Father  are  underived.  The  same  likewise,  ac- 
cording to  him,  is  true  of  the  Spirit.* 

But  in  regard  to  all  such  accounts  of  the  doctrine,  it 
is  an  obvious  remark,  that  the  existence  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Spirit,  is  either  necessary,  or  it  is  not .  If  their  exis- 
tence be  necessary,  we  have  then  three  beings  necessa- 
rily existing,  each  possessing  divine  attributes ;  and  con- 
sequently we  have  three  Gods.  If  it  be  not  necessary, 
but  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  Father,  then  we  say, 
that  the  distance  is  infinite  between  underived  and  inde- 
pendent existence,  and  derived  and  dependent ;  between 
the  supremacy  of  God,  the  Father,  and  the  subordina- 
tion of  beings  who  exist  only  through  his  will.  In  the 
latter  view  of  the  doctrine,  therefore,  wre  clearly  have 
but  one  God  ;  but  at  the  same  time  the  modern  doe- 
trine  of  the  Trinity  disappears.  The  form  of  statement  too, 
just  mentioned,  must  be  abandoned  ;  for  it  can  hardly 
be  pretended  that  these  derived  and  dependent  beings 


*  Ibid,  Sect.  IV.  capp.  n.  —  iv. 


8  MODIFICATIONS    OF   THE 

possess  an  equality  in  divine  attributes,  or  are  equal  in 
nature  to  the  Father.  Beings,  whose  existence  is  de- 
pendent on  the  will  of  another,  cannot  be  equal  in  power 
to  the  being  on  whom  they  depend.  The  doctrine, 
therefore,  however  disguised  by  the  mode  of  statement 
which  we  are  considering,  must,  in  fact,  resolve  itself 
into  an  assertion  of  three  Gods ;  or  must,  on  the 
other  hand,  amount  to  nothing  more  than  a  form 
of  Unitarianism.  In  the  latter  case,  however  objec- 
tionable and  unfounded  I  may  think  it,  it  is  not  my 
present  purpose  to  argue  directly  against  it ;  and  in  the 
former  case,  it  is  pressed  with  all  the  difficulties  which 
bear  upon  the  doctrine  as  commonly  stated,  and  at  the 
same  time  with  new  difficulties,  which  affect  this  par- 
ticular form  of  statement.  That  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
should  exist  necessarily,  as  well  as  the  Father,  and  pos- 
sess equally  with  the  Father  all  divine  attributes,  and 
yet  be  subordinate  and  inferior  to  the  Father  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  there  should  be  two  beings  or  persons,  each  of 
whom  is  properly  and  in  the  highest  sense  God,  and  yet 
that  these  two  beings  or  persons  should  be  subordinate 
and  inferior  to  another  being  or  person,  who  is  God,  i» 
as  incredible  a  proposition  as  the  doctrine  can  involve* 

II.  Others  again,  who  have  chosen  to  call  them- 
selves Trinitarians,  profess  to  understand  by  the  word 
person,  something  very  different  from  what  it  commonly 
expresses  ;  and  regard  it  as  denoting  neither  any  proper 
personality,  nor  any  real  distinction,  in  the  divine  na- 
ture. They  use  the  word  in  a  sense  equivalent  to 
that  which  the  Latin  word  persona  commonly  has  in 
classic   writers,   and    which  we    may  express    by  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  V 

word  character.  According  to  them,  the  Deity  con- 
sidered as  existing  in  three  different  persons,  is  the  Deity 
considered  as  sustaining  three  different  characters. 
Thus  some  of  them  regard  the  three  persons  as  denot- 
ing the  three  relations  which  he  bears  to  men,  as  their 
Creator  (the  Father),  their  Redeemer  (the  Son),  and 
their  Sanctifier  (the  Holy  Spirit).  Others  found  the 
distinction  maintained  in  the  doctrine  on  three  attributes 
of  God,  as  his  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power.  Those 
who  explain  the  Trinity  in  this  manner  are  called  modal 
or  nominal  Trinitarians.  Their  doctrine,  as  every  one 
must  perceive,  is  nothing  more  than  simple  Unitarianism 
disguised,  if  it  may  be  said  to  be  disguised,  by  a  very 
improper  use  of  language.  Yet  this  doctrine,  or  rather 
a  heterogeneous  mixture  of  opinions  in  which  this  doc- 
trine is  conspicuous,  has  been,  at  times,  considerably 
prevalent,  and  has  almost  come  in  competition  with  the 
proper  doctrine. 

III.  There  are  others,  who  maintain  with  those 
last  mentioned,  that  in  the  terms  employed  in  stating 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  word  person  is  not  to 
be  taken  in  its  usual  sense ;  but  who  differ  from 
them  in  maintaining,  that  those  terms  ought  to  be  un- 
derstood as  affirming  a  real  threefold  distinction  in  the 
Godhead.  But  this  is  nothing  more  than  a  mere  eva- 
sion, introduced  into  the  general  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine, for  the  purpose  of  rescuing  it  from  the  charge  of 
absurdity,  to  which  those  who  thus  explain  it,  allow  that 
it  would  be  liable,  if  the  language  in  which  it  is  usually 
expressed,  were  to  be  understood  in  its  common  accep- 
tation.     They  themselves,   however,  after  giving  this 


10  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

general  statement,  immediately  relapse  into  the  common 
belief.  When  they  speak  particularly  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  or  the  Spirit,  they  speak  of  each  unequivocally  as 
a  person  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  They  as- 
cribe to  them  personal  attributes.  They  speak  of  each 
as  sustaining  personal  relations  peculiar  to  himself,  and 
performing  personal  actions,  distinct  from  those  of  either 
of  the  others.  It  was  the  Son  who  was  sanctified  and 
sent  into  the  world  ;  and  the  Father  by  whom  he  was 
sanctified  and  sent.  It  was  the  Son  who  became  incar- 
nate, and  not  the  Father.  It  was  the  Son  who  made 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  men,  and  the  Father  by  whom 
the  atonement  was  received.  The  Son  was  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  but  the  Father  was  not  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Son.  The  Son  was  the  Logos  who  was 
with  God,  but  it  would  sound  harsh  to  say,  that  the 
Father  was  with  God.  The  Son  was  the  first-born  of 
every  creature,  the  image  of  the  Invisible  God,  and  did 
not  desire  to  retain  his  equality  with  God.  There  is  no 
one  who  would  not  be  shocked  at  the  thought  of  applying 
this  language  to  the  Father.  Again,  it  was  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  was  sent  as  the  "  Comforter  "  to  our  Lord's 
Apostles,  after  his  ascension,  and  not  the  Father  nor  the 
Son.  All  this,  those  who  assert  the  doctrine  of  three 
distinctions,  but  not  of  three  persons,  in  the  divine  nature, 
must  and  do  say  and  allow  ;  and  therefore  they  do  in 
fact  maintain,  with  other  Trinitarians,  that  there  are 
three  divine  persons,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
distinguished  from  each  other.  They  have  adopted  their 
mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  merely  with  a  view  of  avoid- 
ing those  obvious  objections  which  overwhelm  it  as  com- 
monly  expressed;  without  any  regard  to  its    consistency 


DOCTRINE    OF     THE    TRINITY.  11 

with  their  real  opinions,  or  with  indisputable  and  ac- 
knowledged truths.  The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  an  intelligent  being,  a  person.  There 
may  seem  something  like  irreverence  in  the  very  state- 
ment of  this  truth  ;  but  in  reasoning  respecting  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  we  are  obliged  to  state  even  such 
truths  as  this.  The  Son  of  God  is  an  intelligent  be- 
ing, a  person.  And  no  Christian,  one  would  think, 
who  reflects  a  moment  upon  his  own  belief,  can  doubt 
that  these  two  persons  are  not  the  same.  Neither  of 
them,  therefore,  is  a  mere  distinction  of  the  divine  na- 
ture, nor  the  same  intelligent  being  regarded  under 
different  distinctions.  Let  us  consider  for  a  moment 
what  sort  of  meaning  would  be  forced  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  if,  where  the  Father,  and  the  Son 
of  God,  are  mentioned,  we  were  to  substitute  the  terms, 
"  the  first  distinction  in  the  Trinity,"  and  "  the  second 
distinction  in  the  Trinity,"  or,  "  God  considered  in  the 
first  distinction  of  his  nature,"  and  "  God  considered 
in  the  second  distinction  of  his  nature."  I  will  not 
produce  examples,  because  it  would  appear  to  me  like 
turning  the  Scriptures  into  burlesque. 

If  you  prove  that  the  person,  who  is  called  the  Son  of 
God,  possesses  divine  attributes,  you  prove  that  there  is 
another  divine  person  beside  the  Father.  In  order  to 
complete  the  Trinity,  you  must  proceed  to  prove,  first, 
the  personality,  and  then  the  divinity,  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  doctrine  can 
be  established.  No  one  can  pretend  that  there  is  any 
passage  in  the  Scriptures,  in  which  it  is  expressly  taught, 
that  there  is  a  threefold  distinction  of  any  sort  in  the 
divine    nature.     He    who   proves    the    doctrine  of  the 


12  MODIFICATIONS    OP    THE 

Trinity  from  the  Scriptures,  must  do  it  by  showing  that 
there  are  there  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  are  respectively  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures,  as  each  possessing  divine  attributes.  There 
is  no  other  medium  of  proof.  There  is  no  other  way  in 
which  the  doctrine  can  be  established.  Of  course,  it 
is  the  very  method  of  proof  to  which,  in  common  with 
other  Trinitarians,  those  resort,  who  maintain  that  form 
of  stating  the  doctrine  which  we  are  considering.  It 
follows  from  this,  that  their  real  opinions  must  be  in  fact 
the  same  with  those  of  other  Trinitarians.  Indeed,  the 
whole  statement  appears  to  be  little  more  than  a  mere 
oversight,  a  mistake,  into  which  some  have  fallen  in  their 
haste  to  escape  from  the  objections  which  they  have 
perceived  might  be  urged  against  the  common  form  of 
the  doctrine. 

The  remarks,  that  have  been  made,  appear  to  me 
plain,  and  such  as  may  be  easily  understood  by  every 
reader.  I  have  doubted,  therefore,  whether  to  add 
another,  the  force  of  which  may  not  be  at  once  per- 
ceived, except  by  those  who  are  a  little  familiar  with 
metaphysical  studies.  But  as  it  seems  to  show  deci- 
sively, that  the  statement  which  we  are  considering  is 
untenable  by  any  proper  Trinitarian,  I  have  thought, 
on  the  whole,  that  it  might  be  worth  while  to  subjoin  it. 

In  regard  to  the  personality  of  the  divine  nature,  the 
only  question  is,  whether  there  are  three  persons,  or 
but  one  person.  Those  with  whom  we  are  arguing, 
deny  that  there  are  three  persons.  Consequently 
they  must  maintain  that  there  is  but  one  person. 
They  affirm,  however,  that  there  is  a  threefold 
distinction  in  the  divine  nature  j  that  is,  in  the  nature 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  13 

of  this  one  person.  But  of  the  nature  of  any  being, 
we  can  know  nothing  but  by  the  attributes  or  proper- 
ties of  that  being.  Abstract  all  the  attributes  or  prop- 
erties of  any  being,  and  nothing  remains  of  which  you 
can  form  even  an  imagination.  These  are  all  that  is 
cognizable  by  the  human  mind.  When  you  say,  there- 
fore, that  there  is  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  nature 
of  any  being,  the  only  meaning  which  the  words  will 
admit  (in  relation  to  the  present  subject)  is,  that  the 
attributes  or  properties  of  this  being  may  be  divided 
into  three  distinct  classes,  which  may  be  considered 
separately  from  each  other.  All,  therefore,  which  is 
affirmed  by  the  statement  of  those  whom  we  are  op- 
posing, is,  that  the  attributes  of  that  one  person  who 
is  God,  may  be  divided  into  three  distinct  classes ; 
or  in  other  words,  that  God  may  be  viewed  in  three 
different  aspects  in  relation  to  his  attributes.  But 
this  is  nothing  more  than  a  modal  or  nominal  Trin- 
ity, as  we  have  before  explained  these  terms. 
Those,  therefore,  whose  opinions  we  are  now  con- 
sidering, are,  in  fact,  nominal  Trinitarians  in  their 
statement  of  the  doctrine,  and  real  Trinitarians  in  their 
belief.  They  hold  the  proper  doctrine  with  an  im- 
plicit acknowledgment  in  the  very  statement  which 
they  have  adopted,  that  the  proper  doctrine  is  untena- 
ble ;  and  have  involved  themselves,  therefore,  in  new 
difficulties,  without  having  effected  an  escape  from 
those  with  which  they  were  pressed  before. 

IV.     But  a  very  considerable  portion  of  Trinitarians, 
and  some  of  them  among  the  most  eminent,  have  not 

2 


14  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE 

shrunk  from  understanding  the    doctrine,    as  affirming 
the  existence  of  three  equal  divine  minds,  and  conse- 
quently, to  all  common   apprehension,  of  three  Gods  ; 
and    from    decidedly    rejecting    the    doctrine    of    the 
unity  of  God,  in   that  sense   which  is  at  once  the  popu- 
lar and  the  philosophical    sense    of  the  term.     All   the 
unity   for  which   they  contend,   is   only   such    as    may 
result  from  those  three  divinities  being  inseparably  con- 
joined, and  having  a  mutual  consciousness,  or  a  mutual 
in-being  :  which  last  mode  of  existence   is  again   ex- 
pressed in  the  language   of  technical  theology  by  the 
terms perichoresis  and  circumincession.   "  To  say,"  says 
Dr.   William  Sherlock,   "  that  there   are    three    divine 
persons,   and  not   three   distinct  infinite  minds,  is  both 
heresy  and  nonsense."  *     "  The   distinction  of  persons 
cannot  be   more  truly  and  aptly  represented   than  by 
the  distinction  between  three  men  ;  for  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,   are   as  really    distinct    persons    as    Peter 
James,    and    John."  f     "  We  must   allow  the    Divine 
persons  to  be  real,  substantial  beings."  J     There   are 
few  names   of  higher  authority   among  Calvinists  than 
that  of  Howe.     The   mode   of  explaining  the   doctrine 
to  which  he  was  inclined,  is  well  known.     He  was  dis- 
posed to  regard  the  three  divine  persons,  as  three  "  dis- 
tinct, individual,  necessarily  existing,   spiritual   beings," 
who   formed  together  "  the   most  delicious  society."  § 
Those  who  give  such  accounts  of  the  doctrine,  may  at 

*  Dr.  William  Sherlock's  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity.    1690.    p.  66. 

t  Ibid.    p.  105.  X  Ibid.  p.  47. 

§  Howe's  Calm  Discourse  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.  Works, 
"Vol.  II.  p.  537  seqq.  particularly  pp.  549,  550. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 


15 


least  claim  the  merit  of  having  rendered  their  opin- 
ions in  some  degree  consistent  with  each  other.  They 
have  succeeded,  at  a  dear  purchase  to  be  sure,  in 
freeing  their  creed  from  intrinsic  absurdity,  and  have 
produced  a  doctrine  to  which  there  is  no  decisive  ob- 
jection, except  that  it  contradicts  the  most  explicit 
declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  first  principles  of 
natural  religion  ;  and  is,  therefore,  irreconcilable  with 
all  that  God  has  in  any  way  taught  us  of  himself. 

After  the  council  of  Nice,  that  which  we  have  last 
considered,  became  gradually  the  prevailing  form  of 
the  doctrine,  except  that  it  was  not  very  clearly  settled 
in  what  the  divine  unity  consisted.  The  comparison 
of  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity  to  three  different 
men,  was  borrowed  by  Sherlock  from  the  Fathers  of  the 
fourth  century.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  himself  main- 
tained zealously  this  form  of  Orthodoxy,  says,  that 
"those  who  were  too  Orthodox  fell  into  polytheism,"* 
i.  e.  tritheism.  It  might  have  been  difficult  to  deter- 
mine the  precise  distance  from  tritheism  of  those  who 
were  not  too  Orthodox. 

This  then  is  the  state  of  the  case.  The  proper 
modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  when  viewed  in  con- 
nexion with  that  of  the  unity  of  God,  a  doctrine  es- 
sentially incredible.  In  endeavouring  to  present  it  in 
a  form  in  which  it  may  he  defended,  one  class  of 
Trinitarians  insist  strongly  upon  the  supremacy  of 
the  Father,  and  the  subordination  of  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit.     These,   on   the  one  hand,   must    either   affirm 

*  Orat.  1.  Opp.  Tom.  I.  p.  16. 


16  MODIFICATIONS    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

this  distinction   in  such   a  manner  as  really  to  maintain 
only    a    very  untenable   form  of  Unitarianism  ;  or,    on 
the  other  hand,  must  in  fact  retain   the  common  doc- 
trine, incumbered  with  the  new  and  peculiar   difficulty, 
which  results   from   declaring,  that  the   Son  and  Spirit 
are  each  properly  God,  but  that  each  is   a  subordinate 
God.     Another  class,  the  nominal  Trinitarians,  explain 
away    the    doctrine    entirely,   and  leave  us   nothing  in 
their  general  account  of  it,  with  which  to  contend,  but 
i  very  unjustifiable   use   of  language.     A   third  class, 
those   who  maintain   three  distinctions,  and  deny  three 
persons,  have  merely   put  a  forced  meaning  upon  the 
terms   used  in  its   statement ;  and   have  then   gone  on 
to  reason  and  to  write,  in   a  manner  which  necessarily 
supposes  that  those  terms  are   used  correctly,  and  that 
the  common  form  of  the    doctrine,  which   they   profess 
to  reject,   is  really  that   in  which   they  themselves  re- 
ceive it.     And  a  fourth  class  have  fallen  into   plain  and 
bald  tritheism,  maintaining   the  unity   of  God   only  by 
maintaining,   that  the  three  Gods  of  whom  they  speak 
are  inseparably  and  most   intimately  united.     To  these 
we  may  add,  as  a  fifth  class,  those  who  receive,  or  pro- 
fess to  receive,  the  common   doctrine,  without  any  at- 
tempt to  modify,   explain,   or  understand  it.     All  the 
sects  of  Trinitarians  fall  into  one  or  other  of  the  five 
classes    just     mentioned.       Now    we    may    put     the 
nominal   Trinitarians  out  of  the  question.     They  have 
nothing  to   do  with  the   present   controversy.     And  if 
there  be  any,  who,   calling  themselves  Trinitarians,  do 
in  fact  hold  such  a  subordination  of  the   Son   and  Spirit 
to  the  Father,  that  their  doctrine  amounts   only   to  one 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  17 

form  of  Unitarianism,  we  may  put  these  out  of  the 
question  likewise.  After  having  done  this,  it  will  ap- 
pear from  the  preceding  remarks,  that  the  whole  body 
of  real  Trinitarians  may  be  separated  into  two  great 
divisions ;  namely,  those  who,  in  connexion  with  the  di- 
vine unity,  hold  the  proper  doctrine,  either  with  or  with- 
out certain  modifications,  —  which  modifications,  though 
intended  to  lessen,  would  really,  if  possible,  add  to  its 
incredibility  ;  —  and  those,  who,  maintaining  the  unity 
only  in  name,  are  in  fact  proper  believers  in  three  Gods. 
Now  we  cannot  adopt  the  doctrine  of  those  first  men- 
tioned, because  we  cannot  believe  what  appears  to  us 
a  contradiction  in  terms ;  nor  the  doctrine  of  those  last 
mentioned,  because  neither  revelation  nor  reason  teaches 
us  that  there  are  three  Gods.  If  there  be  any  one  who 
does  not  acquiesce  in  the  conclusion  to  which  we  have 
arrived,  I  beg  him  to  read  over  again  what  precedes, 
and  to  satisfy  himself,  either  that  there  is,  or  that  there 
is  not,  some  error  in  the  statements  and  reasonings. 
The  subject  is  not  one  with  which  we  are  at  liberty  to 
trifle,  and  arbitrarily  assume  opinions  without  reason. 
It  behoves  every  one  to  attend  well  to  the  subject ; 
and  to  be  sure  that  he  holds  the  doctrine  with  no  am- 
biguous or  unsteady  faith,  before  he  undertakes  to 
maintain,  or  professes  to  believe  it,  or  in  any  way  gives 
countenance  to  its  reception  among  Christians. 

With  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  connected  that 
of  the  hypostatic  union,  as  it  is  called,  or  the  doc- 
trine of  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in 
Christy  in  such  a  manner  that  these  two  natures  con- 

2# 


18  DOCTRINE    OF    THE 

stitute  but  one  person.     But  this  doctrine   may  be  al- 
most said  to  have  preeminence  in  incredibility  above  that 
of  the   Trinity   itself.     The  latter  can  be  no  object  of 
belief  when  regarded  in  connexion  with  that  of  the  Divine 
Unity  ;  for  these   two  doctrines   directly  contradict  each 
other.  But  the  former,  without  reference  to  any  other  doc- 
trine, does  in  itself  involve   propositions  as  clearly  self- 
contradictory,  as  any  which  it  is  in  the  power  of  lan- 
guage to  express.     It  teaches,  that   Christ  is  both   God 
and  man.     The   proposition   is  very  plain  and  intelligi- 
ble.    The  words,  God  and  man,  are  among  those  which 
are  in  most  common   use,  and  the  meaning  of  which  is 
best  defined  and  understood.     There  cannot  (as  with 
regard  to  the  terms  employed  in  stating  the   doctrine  of 
the  Trinity)  be    any  controversy   about    the  sense    in 
which  they  are  used  in  this  proposition,  or,   in  other 
words,  about  the   ideas  which   they  are  intended  to  ex- 
press.    And  we  perceive   that  these   ideas  are  wholly 
incompatible  with   each  other.     Our  idea  of  God  is  of 
an  infinite  being  ;  our  idea  of  man  is  of  a  finite  being  ; 
and  we  perceive   that  the   same  being  cannot  be  both 
infinite  and  finite.     There  is   nothing  clear  in  language, 
no  proposition   of  any  sort  can  be  affirmed  to  be   true, 
if  we  cannot  affirm  this  to  be   true,  —  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  the   same   being  should  be  finite  and  infinite  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that   it  is   impossible  that  the  same 
being  should  be   man   and  God.     If  the  doctrine  were 
not  familiar  to  us,  we   should  revolt  from  it,   as  shock- 
ing every  feeling  of  reverence   toward  God  ;  —  and  it 
would  appear  to  us,  at  the  same  time,  as  mere  an  ab- 
surdity as  can  be  presented  to   the  understanding.     No 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  19 

words  can  be  more  destitute  of  meaning,  so  far  as  they 
are  intended  to  convey  a  proposition  which  the  mind 
is  capable  of  admitting,  than  such  language  as  we 
sometimes  find  used,  in  which  Christ  is  declared  to  be 
at  once  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  and  a  man  of  sor- 
rows ;  God  omniscient  and  omnipotent,  and  a  feeble 
man  of  imperfect  knowledge. 

I  know  of  no  way  in  which  the  force  of  the  statement 
just  urged  can  appear  to  be  evaded,  except  by  a  sort 
of  analogy,  that  has  been  instituted  between  the  double 
nature  of  Christ,  as  it  is  called,  and  the  complex  con- 
stitution of  man,  as  consisting  of  soul  and  body.  It  has 
been  said  or  implied,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  union  of 
the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ  does  not  involve 
propositions  more  self-contradictory,  than  those  which 
result  from  the  complex  constitution  of  man  ;  —  that 
we  may,  for  instance,  affirm  of  man,  that  he  is  mor- 
tal, and  that  he  is  immortal ;  or  of  a  particular  indi- 
vidual, that  he  is  dead,  and  that  he  is  living,  (meaning 
by  the  latter  term,  that  he  is  existing  in  the  world  of 
spirits.)  The  obvious  answer  is,  that  there  is  no  anal- 
ogy between  these  propositions  and  those  on  which  we 
have  remarked.  The  propositions  just  stated  belong  to 
a  very  numerous  class,  comprehending  all  those  in 
which  the  same  term  is  at  once  affirmed  and  denied  of 
the  same  subject,  the  term  being  used  in  different  senses ; 
or  in  which,  terms,  apparently  opposite,  are  affirm- 
ed of  the  same  subject,  the  terms  being  used  in  senses 
not  really  opposed  to  each  other.  When  I  say  that 
man  is  mortal,  I  mean  that  his  present  life  will  termi- 
nate ;  when  I  say  that  he  is  immortal,   I  mean,  that  his 


80  DOCTRINE    OF    THE 

existence  will  not  terminate.  I  use  the  words  in  senses" 
not  opposed,  and  bring  together  no  ideas  which  are 
incompatible  with  each  other.  The  second  proposition 
just  mentioned  is  of  the  same  character  with  the  first, 
and  admits,  as  every  one  will  perceive,  of  a  similar  ex- 
planation. In  order  to  constitute  an  analogy  between 
propositions  of  this  sort  and  those  before  stated,  Trini- 
tarians must  say,  that  when  they  affirm  that  Christ  is 
finite  and  not  finite,  omniscient  and  not  omniscient, 
they  mean  to  use  the  words  finite  and  omniscient  in 
different  senses  in  the  two  parts  of  each  proposition. 
But  this  they  will  not  say  ;  nor  do  the  words  admit  of 
more  than  one  sense. 

A  being  of  a  complex  constitution  like  man,  is  not  a 
being  of  a  double  nature.  The  very  term,  double  na- 
ture, when  one  professes  to  use  it  in  a  strict,  philo- 
sophical sense,  implies  an  absurdity.  The  nature  of  a 
being  is  all  which  constitutes  it  to  be  what  it  is  ; 
and  when  one  speaks  of  a  double  nature,  it  is  the 
same  sort  of  language,  as  if  he  were  to  speak  of  a  double 
individuality.  With  regard  to  a  being  of  a  complex 
constitution,  we  may,  undoubtedly,  affirm  that  of  a  part 
of  this  constitution  which  is  not  true  of  the  whole  being ; 
as  we  may  affirm  of  the  body  of  man  that  it  does  not 
think,  though  we  cannot  affirm  this  of  man  ;  —  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  may  affirm  of  the  being  itself  what 
is  not  true  of  a  part  of  its  constitution,  as  by  reversing 
the  example  just  given.  This  is  the  whole  truth  re- 
lating to  the  subject.  Of  a  being  of  a  complex  con- 
stitution, it  is  as  much  an  absurdity  to  affirm  contra- 
dictory propositions  as  of  any  other  being. 


HYPOSTATIC    UNION. 


21 


According  to  those  who  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the 
two  natures  in  Christ,  Christ  speaks  of  himself,  and 
is  spoken  of  by  his  Apostles,  sometimes  as  man,  some- 
times as  God,  and  sometimes  as  both  God  and  man. 
He  speaks,  and  is  spoken  of,  under  these  different  char- 
acters indiscriminately,  without  any  explanation,  and 
without  its  being  any  where  declared,  that  he  existed 
in  these  different  conditions  of  being.  He  prays  to 
that  being,  whom  he  himself  was.  He  declares  him- 
self to  be  ignorant  of  what  (being  God)  he  knew,  and 
unable  to  perform  what  (being  God)  he  could  perform. 
He  affirms  that  he  could  do  nothing  of  himself,  or  by 
his  own  power,  though  he  was  omnipotent.  He,  being 
God,  prays  for  the  glory  which  he  had  with  God,  and 
declares  that  another  is  greater  than  himself.  In  one 
of  the  passages  quoted  in  proof  of  his  divinity,  he 
is  called  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  ;  in  another 
of  these  passages,  he,  the  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
ever,  is  said  to  have  been  anointed  by  God  with  the 
oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows  ;  and  in  a  third 
of  them,  it  is  affirmed  that  he  became  obedient 
to  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  If  my  readers 
are  shocked  by  the  combinations  which  I  have  brought 
together,  I  beg  them  to  do  me  the  justice  to  believe, 
that  my  feelings  are  the  same  with  their  own.  But 
these  combinations  necessarily  result  from  the  doctrine 
which  we  are  considering.  Page  after  page  might  be 
filled  with  inconsistencies  as  gross  and  as  glaring.  The 
doctrine  has  turned  the  Scriptures,  as  far  as  they  relate 
to  this  subject,  into  a  book  of  riddles,  and,  what  is 
worse,  of  riddles  admitting  of  no  solution.     I   willing- 


22  NEITHER    DOCTRINE    TAUGHT 

\y  refrain  from  the  use  of  that  stronger  language,  which 
will  occur  to  many  of  my  readers. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  then,  and  that  of  the 
union  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  are  doctrines,  which, 
when  fairly  understood,  it  is  impossible,  from  the  nature 
of  the  human  mind,  should  be  believed.  They  involve 
manifest  contradictions,  and  no  man  can  believe  what 
he  perceives  to  be  a  contradiction.  In  what  has  been 
already  said,  I  have  not  been  bringing  arguments  to  dis- 
prove these  doctrines  ;  I  have  merely  been  showing 
that  they  are  intrinsically  incapable  of  any  proof  what- 
ever ;  for  a  contradiction  cannot  be  proved  ;  —  that  they 
are  of  such  a  character,  that  it  is  impossible  to  bring 
arguments  in  their  support,  and  unnecessary  to  adduce 
arguments  against  them. 

Here  then  we  might  rest.  If  this  proposition  have 
been  established,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end,  as  far  as  it 
regards  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  and  as  far  as  it  can  be 
carried  on  against  us  by  any  sect  of  Christians.  Till 
it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  some  essential  mistake 
in  the  preceding  statements,  he  who  chooses  to  urge 
that  these  doctrines  were  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  must  do  this,  not  as  a  Christian,  but  as  an  un- 
believer. If  Christ  and  his  Apostles  communicated  a 
revelation  from  God,  these  could  make  no  part  of  it,  for 
a  revelation  from  God  cannot  teach  absurdities. 

But  here  I  have  no  intention  of  resting.  If  I  were 
to  do  so,  I  suppose  that  the  old,  unfounded  com- 
plaint would  be  repeated  once  more,  that  those  who 
reject  these    doctrines,    oppose   reason   to   revelation  ; 


IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  23 

for  there  are  men,  who  seem  unable  to  compre- 
hend the  possibility,  that  the  doctrines  of  their  sect 
may  make  no  part  of  the  Christian  revelation.  What 
pretence,  then,  is  there  for  asserting  that  the  doc- 
trines in  question  are  taught  in  the  Scriptures  ?  Cer- 
tainly they  are  no  where  expressly  taught.  It  can- 
not even  be  pretended  that  they  are.  There  is  not 
a  passage  from  one  end  of  the  Bible  to  the  other, 
on  which  one  can  by  any  violence  force  such  a  mean- 
ing, as  to  make  it  affirm  the  proposition,  "  that  in  the 
Godhead  are  three  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  these  three  are  one  God, 
the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory  ; "  or 
the  proposition  that  Christ  was  and  "  continues  to  be 
God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person 
for  ever."  There  was  a  famous  passage  in  the  first 
Epistle  of  John  (v.  7.),  which  was  believed  to  affirm 
something  like  the  first  mentioned  proposition  ;  but  this 
every  man  of  tolerable  learning  and  fairness,  at  the 
present  day,  acknowledges  to  be  spurious.  And  now 
this  is  gone,  there  is  not  one  to  be  discovered  of  a  simi- 
lar character.     There  is  not  a  passage  to  be  found 

IN  THE  SCRIPTURES,  WHICH  CAN  BE  IMAGINED  TO 
AFFIRM  EITHER  OF  THOSE  DOCTRINES  THAT  HAVE  BEEN 
REPRESENTED  AS  BEING  AT  THE  VERY  FOUNDATION  OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

What  pretence,  then,  is  there  for  saying  that  those 
doctrines  were  taught  by  Jesus  Christ  and  are  to  be 
received  upon  his  authority  ?  What  ground  is  there 
for  affirming,  that  he,  being  a  man,  announced  himself 
as  the  infinite   God,  and  taught  his  followers  also  that 


24  REASONING    OF    TRINITARIANS. 

God  exists  in  three  persons  ?  But  I  will  state  a  broader 
question.  What  pretence  is  there  for  saying  that  those 
doctrines  were  taught  by  any  writer,  Jewish  or  Chris- 
tian, of  any  book  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament  ?  None 
whatever  ;  —  if,  in  order  to  prove  that  a  writer  has  taught 
a  doctrine,  it  be  necessary  to  produce  some  passage  in 
which  he  has  affirmed  that  doctrine. 

What  mode  of  reasoning,  then,  is  adopted  by  Trini- 
tarians ?  I  answer,  that  in  the  first  place,  they  bring 
forward  certain  passages,  which,  they  maintain,  prove 
that  Christ  is  God.  With  these  passages  they  likewise 
bring  forward  some  others  which  are  supposed  to  in- 
timate or  prove  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  cannot  but  be  observed,  however,  that,  for 
the  most  part,  they  give  themselves  comparatively  little 
trouble  about  the  latter  doctrine,  and  seem  to  regard  it 
as  following  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  if  the  former  be 
established.  Now  there  is  no  dispute  that  the  Father 
is  God  ;  and  it  being  thus  proved,  that  the  Son  and 
Spirit  are  each  also  God,  it  is  inferred,  not  that  there 
are  three  Gods,  which  would  be  the  proper  consequence, 
but  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Divinity.  But 
Christ  having  been  proved  to  be  God,  and  it  being  at 
the  same  time  regarded  by  Trinitarians  as  certain  that 
he  was  a  man,  it  is  inferred  also,  that  he  was  both  God 
and  man.  The  stress  of  the  argument,  it  thus  appears, 
bears  upon  the  proposition,  that  Christ  is  God,  the  sec- 
ond person  in  the  Trinity. 

Turning  away  our  view,  then,  for  the  present,  from 
the  absurdities  that  are  involved  in  this  proposition,  or 
with  which  it  is  connected,  we  will  proceed  to  inquire, 
as  if  it  were  capable  of  proof,  what  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles taught  concerning  it. 


SECTION  III. 

THE  PROPOSITION,  THAT  CHRIST  IS  GOD,  PROVED  TO  BE  FALSE 
FROM  THE    SCRIPTURES. 

Let  us  examine  the  Scriptures  in  respect  to  the  fun- 
damental doctrine  of  Trinitarianism  ;  I  mean,  particularly, 
the  Christian  Scriptures ;  for  the  evidence  which  they 
afford  will  render  any  consideration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment unnecessary. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  conceive,  that,  putting 
every  other  part  of  scripture  out  of  view,  and  forget- 
ting all  thai  it  teaches,  this  proposition  is  clearly 
proved  to  be  false  by  the  very  passages  which  are  brought 
in  its  support.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to 
advert  to  the  character  of  some  of  these  passages,  and 
I  shall  now  remark  upon  them  a  little  more  fully. 
They  are  supposed  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God  in  the 
highest  sense,  equal  to  the  Father.  Let  us  see  what 
they  really  prove. 

One  of  them  is  that  in  which  our  Saviour  prays  ; 
"  And  now,  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thyself,  with 
that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." 
John  xvii.   5. 

The  being  who  prayed  to  God  to  glorify  him,  can- 
not be  God. 

The  first  verse  of  John  needs   particular  explanation, 
and  I  shall  hereafter  recur  to  it.     I  will  here  only  ob- 
3 


26  REASONING    FROM    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

serve,  that  if  by  the  term  Logos  be  meant,  as  Trinitarians 
believe,  an  intelligent  being,  a  person,  and  this  person 
be  Christ,  then  the  person  who  was  with  God  could  no^ 
have  been  God,  except  in  a  metaphorical  or  secondary 
acceptation  of  the  terms,  or,  as  some  commentators  have 
supposed,  in  an  inferior  sense  of  the  word  &iog  (God)y 
—  it  being  used  not  as  a  proper,  but  as  a  common  name. 

In  John  v.  22,  it  is  said,  according  to  the  common  ver- 
sion, "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man  ;  but  hath  committed 
all  judgment  unto  the  Son."  "  The  Father  judgeth  no 
?nan,  that  is,  without  the  Son,"  says  a  noted  Orthodox 
commentator,  Gill,  "which  is  a  proof  of  their  equality." 
A  proof  of  their  equality  I  What,  is  it  God  to  whom 
all  judgment  is  committed  by  the  Father  ? 

We  proceed  to  Colossians  i.  15,  &ic.  and  here,  the 
first  words  which  we  find,  declare,  that  the  being 
spoken  of  is  the  image  of  the  Invisible  God.  Is  it 
possible  that  any  one  can  believe,  that  God  is  affirmed 
by  the  Apostle  to  have  been  the  image  of  God  ? 

Turn  now  to  Philippians  ii.  5  —  8.  Here,  according 
to  the  modern  Trinitarian  exposition,  we  are  told,  that 
Christ,  who  was  God,  as  the  passage  is  brought  to  prove, 
did  not  regard  his  equality  with  God  as  an  object  of 
solicitous  desire,  but  humbled  himself,  and  submitted  to 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Can  any  one  im- 
agine, that  he  is  to  prove  to  us  by  such  passages  as 
these,  that  the  being  to  whom  they  relate  is  the  Infinite 
Spirit  ? 

There  is  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the 
language  concerning  Christ  is  more  figurative  and  diffi- 
cult, than  that  of  the  first  four  verses  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.     But  do  these  verses  prove  that  the  wri- 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      27 

ter  of  the  Epistle  believed  Christ  to  be  God  ?  Let  us 
take  the  common  version,  certainly  as  favorable  as  any 
to  this  supposition,  and  consider  how  the  person  spoken 
of  is  described.  He  is  one  appointed  by  God  to  be 
heir  of  all  things,  one  by  whom  God  made  the  worlds, 
the  image  of  his  person,  one  who  hath  sat  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  one  who  hath  obtained  a  more  ex- 
cellent name  than  the  angels.  Is  it  not  wonderful  that 
the  person  here  spoken  of  has  been  believed  to  be 
God  ?  And,  if  the  one  thing  could  be  more  strange  than 
the  other,  would  it  not  be  still  more  wonderful  that  this 
passage  has  been  regarded  as  a  main  proof  of  the  doc- 
trine ? 

Look  next  at  Hebrews  i.  8,  9,  in  which  passage  we 
find  these  words,  "  Therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."' 
Will  any  one  maintain  that  this  language  is  used  con- 
cerning a  being  who  possessed  essential  divinity  ?  If 
passages  of  this  sort  are  brought  by  any  one  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine,  by  what  use  of  language,  by  what  pos- 
sible statements,  would  he  expect  it  to  be  disproved  1 

There  are  few  arguments  on  which  more  stress  has 
been  laid  by  Trinitarians,  than  on  the  application  of  the 
title  •  Son  of  God  '  to  Christ.  Yet  one  who  had  for 
the  6rst  time  heard  of  the  doctrine,  would  doubt,  I  think, 
whether  a  disputant,  who  urged  this  argument,  were  him- 
self unable  to  understand  the  meaning  of  language,  or 
presumed  on  the  incapacity  of  those  whom  he  addressed. 
To  prove  Christ  to  be  God,  a  title  is  adduced  which 
clearly  distinguishes  him  from  God.  To  suppose  the 
contrary,  is  to  suppose,  that  Christ  is  at  once  God  and 
the  Son  of  God,  that  is,  his  own  son,  unless  there  be 
more  than  one  God. 


28       REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

I  think  it  evident,  that  the  conclusion  of  the  fifth 
verse  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans,  and  the  quotation, 
Heb.  i.  10  —  12.  do  not  relate  to  Christ.  I  conceive 
that  they  relate  to  God,  the  Father.  Putting  these,  for 
the  present,  out  of  the  question,  the  passages  on  which 
I  have  remarked,  are  among  the  principal  adduced  in 
support  of  the  doctrine.  They  stand  in  the  very  first 
class  of  proof  texts.  Let  any  man  put  it  to  his  con- 
science what  they  do  prove. 

Again,  it  is  inferred  that  Christ  is  God,  because  it 
is  said,  that  he  will  judge  the  world.  To  do  this,  it  is 
maintained,  requires  omniscience,  and  omniscience  is  the 
attribute  of  divinity  alone.  I  answer,  that  whatever  we 
may  think  of  the  judgment  of  the  world  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament,  St.  Paul  declares  that  God  will  judge 
the    world  by  a  man  *    (not    a   God)    whom    he    has 

APPOINTED. 

Again  it  is  argued  that  Christ  is  God,  because   supreme 
dominion   is   ascribed   to   him.     I  do    not  now  inquire 
what  is  meant  by  this  supreme  dominion  ;   but  I  answer^ 
that  it  is  nowhere  ascribed  to  him   in  stronger  language 
than  in  the  following  passage.     "  Then  will  be  the  end? 
when  he  will  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to   God,  even   the 
Father  ;  after  destroying  all  dominion,  and  all  authority 
and  power.     For  he  must  reign  till  He   [that  is,  Godj 
has  put  all  his   enemies  under  his  feet.     ...... 

And  when  all  things  are  put  under  him,  then  will  the 
Son  himself  be  subject  to  God,  who  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.  "  f 

*"    A  man,"   so  the    original    should    be    rendered,  not   "  that 
man:"    b  afy)  $  £pru     Acts  xvii.  31. 
|  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      29 

No  words,  one  would  think,  could  more  clearly  dis- 
criminate Christ  from  God,  and  declare  his  dependence 
and  inferiority  ;  and,  of  necessity,  his  infinite  inferiority. 
I  say,  as  I  have  said  before,  infinite  inferiority ;  because 
an  inferior  and  dependent  must  be  a  finite  being,  and 
finite  and  infinite  do  not  admit  of  comparison. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  doctrine  under  consideration 
is  overthrown  by  the  very  arguments  brought  in  its 
support. 

II.  But  further ;  it  contradicts  the  express  and 
reiterated  declarations  of  our  Saviour.  According  to 
the  doctrine  in  question,  it  was  the  Son,  or  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  who  was  united  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ.  It  was  his  words,  therefore,  that 
Christ,  as  a  divine  teacher,  spoke  ;  and  it  was  through 
his  power,  that  he  performed  his  wonderful  works. 
But  this  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  declarations  of 
Christ.  He  always  refers  the  divine  powers  which  he 
exercised,  and  the  divine  knowledge  which  he  discover- 
ed, to  the  Father,  and  never  to  any  other  person,  or  to 
the  Deity  considered  under  any  other  relation  or  dis- 
tinction. Of  himself,  as  the  Son,  he  always  speaks  as 
of  a  being  entirely  dependent  upon  the  Father. 

"  If  of  myself  I  assume  glory,  my  glory  is  nothing  ; 
it  is  my  Father  who  glorifies  me."     John  viii.  54. 

"  As  the  Father  has  life  in  himself,  so  has  he 
granted  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself."  John 
v.  26. 

This  is  a  verbal  translation.  A  more  intelligible  ren- 
dering would  be ;  As  the  Father  is  the  source  of  life,  so 

has  he  granted  to  the  Son  also  to  be  the  source  of  life. 
3# 


30       REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT". 

"  The  works  which  the  Father  has  given  me  to> 
perform  [i.  e.  has  enabled  me  to  perform],  these  works 
which  I  do,  testify  of  me,  that  the  Father  has  sent  me. " 
John  v.  36. 

"  As  the  living  Father  has  sent  me,  and  I  live  by 
the  Father,"  &c.     John  vi.  57.* 

"  I  have  not  spoken  from  myself,  but  the  Father  who. 
sent  me  has  commanded  what  I  should  enjoin,  and  what 
I  should  teach.  .  .  .  Whatever  I  speak,  therefore, 
I  speak  according  to  the  commandment  which  the 
Father  has  given  me."     John  xii.  49,  50. 

"  The  doctrine  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the- 
Father's  who  sent  me."     John  xiv.  24. 

"  If  I  perform  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe 
me  not."     John  x.  37. 

"  The  words  which  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of 
myself ;  the  Father  who  dwells  in  me,  performs  my 
works."     John  xiv.  10. 

The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  only 
what  he  sees  his  Father  doing."     John  v.  19. 

"  When  ye  have  set  the  Son  of  man  on  high  [i.  e. 
crucified  him]  then  will  ye  know  that  I  am  he  [i.  e.  the 
Messiah],  and  that  I  do  nothing  of  myself;  but  speak 
these  things  as  my  Father  has  taught  me  ;  and  that  he 
who  sent  me  is  with  me."     John  viii.  28,  29. 

I  do  not  multiply  passages,  because  they  must  be 
familiar  to   every  one.     From  the   declarations  of  our 

*  "  In  quoting  the  words  as  given  above,  I  have  followed  the 
Common  Version  ;  but  the  verse  should  be  rendered  thus  :  tl  As 
the  ever-blessed  Father  sent  me,  and  I  am  blessed  through  the 
Father,  so  he,  whose  food  I  am,. shall  be  blessed  through  me."  Z««,  in 
this  verse,  is  used  in  the  secondary  signification  which  it  so  often 
has,  denoting,  /  am  blessed,  I  am  happu. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     31 

Saviour,  it  appears,  that  he  constantly  referred  the  di- 
vine power  manifested  in  his  miracles,  and  the  divine 
inspiration  by  which  he  spoke,  to  the  Father,  and  not 
to  any  other  divine  person  such  as  Trinitarians  suppose. 
According  to  their  hypothesis,  it  was  the  divine  power 
and  wisdom  of  the  Son,  which  were  displayed  in  Jesus  ;  to 
him  therefore  should  the  miracles  and  doctrine  of  Jesus 
have  been  referred  ;  which  they  never  are.  No  men- 
tion of  such  a  divine  person  appears  in  his  discourses. 
But  of  himself,  as  the  Son  of  God,  he  speaks,  as  of  a 
being  entirely  dependent  upon  his  Father  and  our  Father, 
his  God  and  our  God.  These  declarations  are  decisive 
of  the  controversy.  Every  other  argument  might  be  laid 
aside. 

III.  But  in  the  third  place,  the  doctrine  that  Christ 
is  God,  is  opposed  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  all  the  facts  in  the  history  of  Christ.  Though 
conceived  by  a  miracle,  he  was  born  into  the  world  as 
other  men  are,  and  such  as  other  men  are.  He  did  not 
come,  as  some  of  the  Jews  imagined  their  Messiah  would 
come,  no  man  knew  whence.  *  He  was  a  helpless  infant. 
Will  any  one,  at  the  present  day,  shock  our  feelings 
and  understanding  to  the  uttermost,  by  tellino-  us  that 
Almighty  God  was  incarnate  in  this  infant,  and  wrapped 
in  swaddling-clothes  ?  f     He  grew    in  wisdom,   and  in 


*  "  We  know  whence    this  man  is ;  whereas  when  the  Messiah, 
comes,  no  one  will  know  whence  he  is."     John  vii.  37.. 
1  Dr.  Watts  in  one  of  his  Hymns  says  : 

"  This  infant  is  the  Mighty  God,. 
Come  to  be  suckled  and  adored"     B.  I.  h.  13. 

The   language   is  almost  too  horrible  to  be  quoted.  —  Dr.  Watts 


32      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  men.  Read  over 
his  history  in  the  Evangelists,  and  ask  yourselves  if  you 
are  not  reading  the  history  of  a  man  ;  though  of  one  in- 
deed to  whom  God  had  given  his  spirit  without  measure, 
whom  he  had  entrusted  with  miraculous  powers,  and  con- 
stituted a  messenger  of  the  most  important  truths.  He 
appears  with  all  the  attributes  of  humanity.  He  discov- 
ers human  affections.  He  is  moved  even  to  tears  at  the 
grave  of  Lazarus.  He  mourns  over  the  calamities 
about  to  overwhelm  his  country.  While  enduring  the 
agony  of  crucifixion,  he  discovers  the  strength  of  his  filial 
affection,  and  consigns  his  mother  to  the  care  of  the  dis- 
ciple whom  he  loved.  He  was  sometimes  excited  to 
indignation,  and  his  soul  was  sometimes  troubled  by  the 
sufferings  which  he  endured,  and  which  he  anticipated. 
"  Now  is  my  soul  troubled ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ? 
Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  ?  But  for  this  I  came, 
—  for  this  very  hour."  #  Devotion  is  the  virtue  of  a 
created  and  dependent  being.  But  our  Saviour  has 
left  us  not  less  an  example  of  piety  than  of  benevolence. 
His  expressions  of  dependence  upon  his  Father  and 
upon  our  Father,  are  the  most  absolute  and  unequivocal. 
He  felt  the  common  wants  of  our  nature,  hunger,  thirst, 
and  weariness.  He  was  in  an  agony,  and  an  angel 
was  sent  to  strengthen  him.  He  suffered  death,  the 
common  lot  of  man.  He  endured  the  cross,  despising 
the  shame,  and  he  did  this  for  the  joy  set  before  him.-)- 
"  Therefore  God,  even  his  God,  has  highly  exalted 

was  a  man  of  piety  and  of  very  considerable  intellectual  powers  :. 
yet  to  this  extreme  point  could    his  mind  be  debased  by  a  belief  of 
the  doctrine  against  which  we  are  contending. 
*  John  xii.  27.  t  Heb  xii.  2. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     33 

him."  But  it  is  useless  to  quote  or  allude  to  particular 
passages,  which  prove  that  Christ  was  a  being  distinct 
from,  inferior  to,  and  dependent  upon  God.  You  may- 
find  them  on  every  page  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
proof  of  this  fact  is,  as  I  have  said,  imbedded  and 
ingrained  in  the  very  passages  brought  to  support  a  con- 
trary proposition. 

But  it  is  useless,  for  another  reason,  to  adduce  argu- 
ments in  proof  of  this  fact.  It  is  conceded  by  Trinitari- 
ans explicitly  and  fully.  The  doctrine  of  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  as  essential  a  part  of  their  scheme,  as  the 
doctrine  of  his  divinity.  They  allow,  or  to  speak  more 
properly,  they  contend  that  he  was  a  man.  But  if  this 
be  true,  then  the  only  question  that  need  be  examined 
is,  whether  it  be  possible  for  Christ  to  have  been  at  once 
God  and  man,  infinite  and  finite,  omniscient  and  not  om- 
niscient, omnipotent  and  not  omnipotent.  To  my  mind, 
the  propositions  here  supposed,  are  as  if  one  were  to 
say,  that  to  be  sure,  astronomers  have  correctly  esti- 
mated the  size  of  the  earth  ;  but  that  it  does,  notwith- 
standing, fill  infinite  space, 

IV.  In  the  next  place,  the  doctrine  is  proved  to  be 
false,  because  it  is  evident  from  the  Scriptures,  that  none 
of  those  effects  were  produced,  which  ivauld  necessa- 
rily have  resulted  from  its  first  annunciation  by  Christ, 
and  its  subsequent  communication  by  his  Apostles.  The 
disciples  of  our  Saviour  must,  at  some  period,  have  con- 
sidered him  merely  as  a  man.  Such  he  was,  to  all  ap- 
pearance, and  such,  therefore,  they  must  have  believed 
him  to  be.  Before  he  commenced  his  ministry,  his  rela- 
tions   and   fellow-townsmen  certainly  regarded  him  as 


34      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

nothing  more  than  a  man.  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter, 
the  son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James  and  Joseph,  and 
of  Judas  and  Simon  ?  And  are  not  his  sisters  here  with 
us?"#  At  some  particular  period,  the  communication 
must  have  been  made  by  our  Saviour  to  his  disciples, 
that  he  was  not  a  mere  man,  but  that  he  was,  properly 
speaking,  and  in  the  highest  sense,  God  himself.  The 
doctrines  with  which  we  are  contending,  and  other  doc- 
trines of  a  similar  character,  have  so  obscured  and  con- 
fused the  whole  of  Christianity,  that  even  its  historical 
facts  appear  to  be  regarded  by  many  scarcely  in  the  light 
of  real  occurrences.  But  we  may  carry  ourselves  back 
in  imagination  to  the  time  when  Christ  was  on  earth,  and 
place  ourselves  in  the  situation  of  the  first  believers. 
Let  us  then  reflect  for  a  moment  on  what  would  be  the 
state  of  our  own  feelings,  if  some  one  with  whom  we  had 
associated  as  a  man,  were  to  declare  to  us,  that  he  was 
really  God  himself.  If  his  character  and  works  had  been 
such  as  to  command  any  attention  to  such  an  assertion, 
still  through  what  an  agony  of  incredulity,  and  doubt, 
and  amazement,  and  consternation,  must  the  mind  pass, 
before  it  could  settle  down  into  a  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  his  declaration.  And  when  convinced  of  its  truth, 
with  what  unspeakable  astonishment  should  we  be  overn 
whelmed.  With  what  extreme  awe,  and  entire  prostra- 
tion of  every  faculty,  should  we  approach  and  content 
plate  such  a  being ;  if  indeed  man,  in   his  present  tene- 

*  Mark  vi.  3.  I  have  retained  the  words  <  brother  '  and  '  sisters,' 
used  in  the  common  version,  not  thinking  it  important  in  the  con- 
nexion in  which  the  passage  is  quoted,  to  make  any  change  in  this 
rendering ;  but  the  relationship  intended,  I  believe  to  be  that  of 
cousins, 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,     35 

ment  of  clay,  could  endure  such  intercourse  with  his 
Maker.  With  what  a  strong  and  unrelaxing  grasp  would 
the  idea  seize  upon  our  minds.  How  continually  would 
it  be  expressed  in  the  most  forcible  language,  whenever 
we  had  occasion  to  speak  of  him.  What  a  deep  and  in- 
delible coloring  would  it  give  to  every  thought  and  senti- 
ment, in  the  remotest  degree  connected  with  an  agent  so 
mysterious  and  so  awful.  But  we  perceive  nothing  of 
this  state  of  mind  in  the  disciples  of  our  Saviour ;  but 
much  that  gives  evidence  of  a  very  different  state  of 
mind.  One  may  read  over  the  first  three  Evangelists, 
and  it  must  be  by  a  more  than  ordinary  exercise  of  inge- 
nuity, if  he  discover  what  may  pass  for  an  argument,  that 
either  the  writers,  or  the  numerous  individuals  of  whom 
they  speak,  regarded  our  Saviour  as  their  Maker  and 
God ;  or  that  he  ever  assumed  that  character.  Can  we 
believe,  that  if  such  a  most  extraordinary  annunciation,  as 
has  been  supposed,  had  ever  actually  been  made  by  him, 
no  particular  record  of  its  circumstances,  and  immediate 
effects,  would  have  been  preserved? — that  the  Evange- 
lists in  their  accounts  of  their  master  would  have  omitted 
the  most  remarkable  event  in  his  history  and  their  own  ? 
—  and  that  three  of  them  at  least  (for  so  much  must 
be  conceded)  would  have  made  no  direct  mention  of 
far  the  most  astonishing  fact  in  relation  to  his  character  ? 
Read  over  the  accounts  of  the  conduct  and  conversation 
of  his  disciples  with  their  master,  and  put  it  to  your  own 
feelings,  whether  they  ever  thought  that  they  were  con- 
versing with  their  God  ?  Read  over  these  accounts 
attentively,  and  ask  yourself,  if  this  supposition  do  not 
appear  to  you  one  of  the  most  incongruous  that  ever 
entered  the  human  mind  ?     Take  only  the  facts  and  con- 


36      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

versation,  which  occurred  the  night  before  our  Saviour's 
crucifixion,  as  related  by  St.  John.  Did  Judas  be- 
lieve that  he  was  betraying  his  God?  Their  master 
washed  the  feet  of  his  Apostles.  Did  the  Apostles  be- 
lieve —  but  the  question  is  too  shocking  to  be  stated  in 
plain  words.  Did  they  then  believe  their  master  to  be 
God,  when,  surprised  at  his  taking  notice  of  an  inquiry 
which  they  wished  to  make,  but  which  they  had  not  in 
fact  proposed,*  they  thus  addressed  him  ?  "  Now  we 
are  sure  that  thou  knowest  all  things,  and  that  there  is 
no  need  for  any  man  to  question  thee.  By  this  we 
believe  that  thou  earnest  from  God."  f  Could  they 
imagine,  that  he,  who,  throughout  his  conversation,  spoke 
of  himself  only  as  the  minister  of  God,  and  who  in  their 
presence  prayed  to  God,  was  himself  the  Almighty  ? 
Did  they  believe  that  it  was  the  Maker  of  Heaven  and 
Earth  whom  they  were  deserting,  when  they  left  him 
upon  his  apprehension  ?  But  there  is  hardly  a  fact  or 
conversation  recorded  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour's 
ministry,  which  may  not  afford  ground  for  such  questions 
as  have  been  proposed.  He  who  maintains,  that  the 
first  disciples  of  our  Saviour  did  ever  really  believe  that 
they  were  in  the  immediate  presence  of  their  God,  must 
maintain  at  the  same  time,  that  they  were  a  class  of  men 
by  themselves,  and  that  all  their  feelings  and  conduct 
were  immeasurably  and  inconceivably  different,  from 
what  those  of  any  other  human  beings  would  have  been, 
under  the  same  belief.  But  beside  the  entire  absence 
of  that  state  of  mind,  which  must  have  been  produced 
by  this  belief,  there  are  other  continual  indications,  direct 

*  See  John  xvi.  17  - 19.  t  John  xvi.  30. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      37 

and  indirect,  of  their  opinions  and  feelings  respecting  their 
master,  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  of  its 
existence  during  any  period  of  his  ministry,  or  their  own. 
Throughout  the  New  Testament  we  find  nothing  which 
implies,  that  such  a  most  extraordinary  change  of  feeling 
ever  took  place  in  the  disciples  of  Christ,  as  must  have 
been  produced  by  the  communication  that  their  master 
was  God  himself  upon  earth.  No  where  do  we  find  the 
expression  of  those  irresistible  and  absorbing  sentiments, 
which  must  have  possessed  their  minds  under  the  con- 
viction of  this  fact.  With  this  conviction,  in  what  terms, 
for  instance,  would  they  have  spoken  of  his  crucifixion, 
and  of  the  circumstances  with  which  it  was  attended  ?  The 
power  of  language  would  have  sunk  under  them  in  the 
attempt  to  express  their  feelings.  Their  words,  when  they 
approached  the  subject,  would  have  been  little  more 
than  a  thrilling  cry  of  horror  and  indignation.  On  this 
subject,  they  did  indeed  feel  most  deeply  ;  but  can  we 
think  that  St.  Peter  regarded  his  master  as  God  incar- 
nate, when  he  thus  addressed  the  Jews  by  whom  Christ 
had  just  been  crucified  ?  "  Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these 
words  ;  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  proved  to  you  to  be  a  man 
from  god,  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs,  which 
God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  yourselves 
know,  him,  delivered  up  to  you  in  conformity  to  the 
fixed  will  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  crucified 
and  slain  by  the  hands  of  the  heathen.  Him  has  God 
raised  to  life."  * 

But  what  have  been  stated  are  not   the  only  conse- 
quences which  must  necessarily  have  followed   from  the 

*  Actsii.  22  —  24. 


38      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

communication  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  It  cannot 
be  denied  by  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  deity 
of  Christ,  that,  however  satisfactorily  it  may  be  explain- 
ed, and  however  well  it  may  be  reconciled  with  that 
fundamental  principle  of  religion,  to  which  the  Jews 
were  so  strongly  attached,  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of 
God,  yet  it  does,  or  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  some- 
what inconsistent  with  it.  From  the  time  of  the  Jew 
who  is  represented  by  Justin  Martyr  as  disputing  with 
him,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  to  the  pres- 
ent period,  it  has  always  been  regarded  by  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  with  abhorrence.  They  have  considered  the 
Christians  as  no  better  than  idolaters  ;  as  denying  the 
first  truth  of  religion.  But  the  unbelieving  Jews,  in  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  opposed  Christianity  with  the  ut- 
most bitterness  and  passion.  They  sought  on  every  side 
for  objections  to  it.  There  was  much  in  its  character 
to  which  the  believing  Jews  could  hardly  be  reconciled. 
The  Epistles  are  full  of  statements,  explanations,  and 
controversy,  relating  to  questions  having  their  origin 
in  Jewish  prejudices  and  passions.  With  regard  how- 
ever to  this  doctrine,  which,  if  it  had  ever  been  taught, 
the  believing  Jews  must  have  received  with  the  utmost 
difficulty,  and  to  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  would  have 
manifested  the  most  determined  opposition,  —  with  re- 
gard to  this  doctrine,  there  is  no  trace  of  any  controver- 
sy. But,  if  it  had  ever  been  taught,  it  must  have  been 
the  main  point  of  attack  and  defence  between  those  who 
assailed,  and  those  who  supported  Christianity.  There 
is  nothing  ever  said  in  its  explanation.  But  it  must 
have  required,  far  more  than  any  other  doctrine,  to  be 
explained,  illustrated,  and  enforced ;  for  it  appears,  not 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      39 

only  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of 
God,  but  equally  so  with  that  of  the  humanity  of  our 
Saviour  ;  and  yet  both  these  doctrines,  it  seems,  were  to 
be  maintained  in  connexion  with  it.  It  must  have  been 
necessary,  therefore,  to  state  it  as  clearly  as  possible,  to 
exhibit  it  in  its  relations,  and  carefully  to  guard  against 
the  misapprehensions  to  which  it  is  so  liable  on  every 
side.  Especially  must  care  have  been  taken  to  prevent 
the  gross  mistakes  into  which  the  Gentile  converts  from 
polytheism  were  likely  to  fall.  Yet  so  far  from  any 
such  clearness  of  statement  and  fulness  of  explanation, 
the  whole  language  of  the  New  Testament  in  relation  to 
this  subject  is  (as  I  have  before  said)  a  series  of  enig- 
mas, upon  the  supposition  of  its  truth.  The  doctrine, 
then,  is  never  defended  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
unquestionably  it  would  have  been  the  main  object  of 
attack,  and  the  main  difficulty  in  the  Christian  system. 
It  is  never  explained,  though  no  doctrine  could  have 
been  so  much  in  need  of  explanation.  On  the  contrary, 
upon  the  supposition  of  its  truth,  the  Apostles  express 
themselves  in  such  a  manner,  that  if  it  had  been  their 
purpose  to  darken  and  perplex  the  subject,  they  could 
not  have  done  it  more  effectually.  And  still  more,  this 
doctrine  is  never  insisted  upon  as  a  necessary  article  of 
faith  ;  though  it  is  now  represented  by  its  defenders  as 
lying  at  the  foundation  of  Christianity.  With  a  few 
exceptions,  the  passages  in  which  it  is  imagined  to  be 
taught,  are  introduced  incidentally,  the  attention  of  the 
writer  being  principally  directed  to  some  other  topic  ; 
and  can  be  regarded  only  as  accidental  notices  of  it. 
It  appears,  then,  that  while  other  questions  of  far  less 
difficulty  (for  instance,  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile 


40 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


converts)  were  subjects  of  such  doubt  and  controversy, 
that  even  the  authority  of  the  Apostles  was  barely  suffi- 
cient to  establish  the  truth  ;  this  doctrine,  so  extraordi- 
nary, so  obnoxious,  and  so  hard  to  be  understood,  was 
introduced  in  silence,  and  received  without  hesitation, 
dislike,  opposition,  or  misapprehension.  There  are  not 
many  propositions,  to  be  proved  or  disproved  merely  by 
moral  evidence,  which  are  more  incredible. 

I  wish  to  repeat  some  of  the  ideas  already  suggested, 
in  a  little  different  connexion.  The  doctrine,  that  Christ 
was  God  himself,  appearing  upon  earth  to  make  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  men,  is  represented  by  those  who 
maintain  it,  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity, 
affecting  essentially  the  whole  character  of  our  religion. 
If  true,  it  must,  indeed,  have  affected  essentially  the 
whole  character  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
A  truth  of  such  awful  and  tremendous  interest,  a  fact, 
"  at  which  reason  stands  aghast,  and  faith  herself  is  half 
confounded,"  *  a  doctrine,  so  adapted  to  seize  upon  and 
possess  the  imagination  and  the  feelings,  and  at  once  so 
necessary  and  so  difficult  to  be  understood,  must  have 
appeared  every  where  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
most  prominent  relief.  Nobody,  one  would  think,  can 
seriously  imagine  it  any  answer  to  this  remark,  to  say, 
that  "  the  Apostles  doubtless  expected  to  be  believed 
when  they  had  once  plainly  asserted  any  thing  ; "   or  to 

*  Such  is  the  language  of  Bishop  Hurd  in  defending  the  doctrine, 
"  In    this   awfully    stupendous   manner,   at  which   reason    stands 

AGHAST  AND  FAITH   HERSELF  IS  HALF  CONFOUNDED,  was  the  grace  of 

God  to  man  at  length  manifested."    Sermons,  Vol.  ii.  p.  289.  London, 
1785. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      41 

suggest,  that  their  veracity  might  have  been  suspected, 
if  they  had  made  frequent  and  constant  asseverations  of 
the  truth  of  the  doctrine.*  What  was  the  business  of 
the  Apostles,  but  to  teach  and  explain,  to  enforce  and 
defend,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity  ?  I  say 
to  defend  these  doctrines  ;  for  he  who  reads  the  Epistles 
with  any  attention,  will  not  think  that  the  mere  authority 
of  an  Apostle  was  decisive  in  bearing  down  at  once  all 
error,  doubt,  and  opposition,  among  believers.  Even  if 
this  had  been  the  case,  their  converts  must  still  have 
been  furnished  with  some  answer  to  those  objec- 
tions, with  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  would  have 
assailed  a  doctrine  so  apparently  incredible,  and  so 
abhorrent  to  their  feelings. — From  the  very  nature  of 
the  human  mind,  if  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  at  all 
resembled  those  of  other  men,  the  fact  that  their  master 
was  the  Almighty,  clothed  in  flesh,  must  have  appeared 
continually  in  their  writings,  in  direct  assertions,  in  allu- 
sions, in  the  strongest  possible  expressions  of  feeling,  in 
a  thousand  different  forms.  The  intrinsic  difficulty  of 
the  doctrine  in  question  is  so  great,  and  such  was  the 
ignorance  of  the  first  converts,  and  their  narrowness  of 
conception,  that  the  Apostles  must  have  continually 
recurred  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  it,  and 
guarding  it  against  misapprehension.  As  a  fundamental 
doctrine  of  our  religion,  it  is  one  which  they  must  have 
been  constantly  employed  in  teaching.  If  it  were  a 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  evidence  for  it  would  burst 
from  every  part  of  the  New  Testament,  in  a  blaze  of 
light.     Can  any  one  think  that  we  should  be  left  to  collect 

*  See  Professor  Stuart's  Letters,  p.  128. 

4* 


42      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  proof  of  a   fundamental  article  of  our  faith,  and  the 
evidence  of  incomparably  the  most  astonishing  fact  that 
ever  occurred  upon  our   earth,  from  some  expressions 
scattered  here  and  there,  the  greater  part  of  them  being 
dropt    incidentally  ;    and    that   really   one  of  the    most 
plausible  arguments  for  it  would  be  found  in  the  omission 
of  the  Greek  article  in  four  or  five  texts  ?    Can  any  one 
think,  that  such  a  doctrine  would   have  been  so  taught, 
that,  putting  out  of  view  the  passages  above  referred  to, 
the  whole  remaining  body  of  the   New  Testament,  the 
whole   history   of  our   Saviour,  and  the   prevailing  and 
almost  uniform  language  of  his  Apostles  should  appear, 
at   least,   to  be  thoroughly    irreconcilable   with    it?     I 
speak,  it  will  be  remembered,  merely  of  the  proposition, 
that  Christ  is   God.     With    regard  to  the    doctrine    of 
his  double  nature,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  it  can- 
not, as  I  have  said,  be  pretended  that  either  of  these  is 
any  where  directly  taught.     The  whole  New  Testament, 
the    Gospels  and   the   Epistles,   present  another  aspect 
from  what  they  must  have  done,  if  the   doctrines  main- 
tained by  Trinitarians  were  true.     If  true,  it  is  incredible^ 
that  they  should  not  have  appeared  in  the  Scriptures  in 
a  form  essentially  different  from  that,  in  which   alone  it 
can  be  pretended  that  they  do  at  present. 

V.  In  treating  of  the  argument  from  Scripture,  I  have 
thus  far  reasoned  ad  hominem ;  as  if  the  doctrine,  that 
Christ  is  God,  in  the  Trinitarian  sense  of  the  words, 
were  capable  of  proof.  But  I  must  now  advert  to  the 
essential  character  of  the  doctrine.  It  admits  of  being 
understood  in  no  sense  which  is  not  obviously  false  ;  and 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      43 

therefore    it    is  impossible,    that    it    should    have   been 
taught  by  Christ,  if  he  were  a  teacher  from  God. 

From  the  nature  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrines,  there  is 
a  liability  to  embarrassment  in  the  whole  of  our  reason- 
ing from  Scripture  against  them  ;  it  being  impossible  to 
say  definitely  what  is  to  be  disproved.  I  have  endeav- 
oured, however,  to  direct  the  argument  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  meet  those  errors  in  any  form  they  may 
assume.  That  so  many  have  held,  or  professed  to  hold, 
them  (a  phenomenon,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in 
the  history  of  the  human  mind),  is  principally  to  be 
explained  by  the  fact,  that  the  language  in  which  they 
are  stated,  taken  in  its  obvious  sense,  expresses  proposi- 
tions so  utterly  incredible.  Starting  off  from  its  obvious 
meaning,  the  mind  has  recourse  to  conceptions  of  its 
own,  obscure,  undefined,  and  unsettled  ;  which,  by  now 
assuming  one  shape  and  then  another,  elude  the  grasp 
of  reason.  In  disproving  from  the  Scriptures  the  propo- 
sition that  Christ  is  God,  the  arguments  that  have  been 
urged,  I  trust,  bear  upon  it  in  any  Trinitarian  sense, 
which  it  may  be  imagined  to  express.  But  what  does  a 
Trinitarian  mean  by  this  proposition  ?  Let  us  assume 
that  the  title  '  Son  of  God,'  applied  to  Christ  denotes,  in 
some  sense  or  other,  proper  essential  divinity.  But  the 
Son  is  but  one  of  three,  who  constitute  God.  You  may 
substitute  after  the  numerals,  the  word  person,  or  dis- 
tinction, or  any  other  ;  it  will  not  affect  the  argument. 
God  is  a  being  ;  and  when  you  have  named  Christ  or  the 
Son,  you  have  not,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  named  all  which  constitutes  this  being.  The 
Trinitarian  asserts  that  God  exists  in  three  persons ;  or, 
to  take  the  wholly  unimportant  modification  of  the  doc- 


44      REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 

trine  that  some  writers  have  attempted  to  introduce,  that 
"  God  is  three  in  a  certain  respect."  But  Christ,  it  is 
also  affirmed,  is  God,  the  Son  is  God.  Does  he,  then, 
exist  in  three  persons  ?  Is  he  three  in  a  certain  respect  ? 
Unquestionably  not.  The  word  '  God '  is  used  in  two 
senses.  In  one  case,  as  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being, 
properly,  in  the  only  sense  which  a  Christian  can 
recognise  as  the  literal  sense  of  the  term ;  in  the  other 
case,  as  applied  to  Christ,  though  professedly  in  the 
same,  yet  clearly  and  necessarily  in  a  different  significa- 
tion, no  one  can  tell  what. 

Again  ;  the  Father  is  God.  Nothing  car  be  added  to 
his  infinity  or  perfections  to  complete  our  idea  of  God. 
Confused  as  men's  minds  have  been  by  the  doctrine  we 
are  opposing,  there  is  no  one  who  would  not  shrink  from 
expressly  asserting  any  thing  to  be  wanting  to  consti- 
tute the  Father,  God,  in  the  most  absolute  and  com- 
prehensive sense  of  the  term.  His  conceptions  must 
be  miserably  perplexed  and  perverted,  who  thinks  it 
possible  to  use  language  on  this  subject  too  strong  or 
too  unlimited.  In  the  Father  is  all  that  we  can  con- 
ceive of  as  constituting  God.  And  there  is  but  one 
God.  In  the  Father,  therefore,  exists  all  that  we  can 
conceive  of,  as  constituting  the  One  and  Only  God. 
But  it  is  contended  that  Christ  also  is  God.  What, 
however,  can  any  one  mean  by  this  proposition,  who 
understands  and  assents  to  the  perfectly  intelligible  and 
indisputable  propositions  just  stated?  Is  the  meaning, 
that  Christ,  as  well  as  the  Father  —  or  if  the  Father 
be  God,  we  must  say,  as  well  as  God,  —  is  the  One 
and  Only  God  ?  Is  it  that  we  are  in  error  about  the 
unity  of  God,  and  that  Christ  is  another  God  ?    No  one 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


45 


will  assent  to  either  of  these  senses  of  the  proposi- 
tion. Does  it  imply  then,  that  neither  the  Father  nor 
the  Son  is  the  One  and  Only  God,  but  that  together 
with  another,  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  constitute  this  mys- 
terious Being  ?  This  seems  at  first  view  more  conform- 
ed to  the  doctrine  to  be  maintained ;  but  it  must  be 
observed,  that  he  who  adopts  this  sense,  asserts,  not 
that  Christ  is  God,  but  that  he  is  not  God  ;  and  as- 
serts at  the  same  time  that  the  Father  is  not  God. 

Once  more  ;  if  Christ  be  God,  and  if  there  be  but 
one  God,  then  all  that  is  true  of  God  is  true  of  Christ, 
considered  as  God  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  all  that  is 
true  of  the  Son  is  true  of  God.  This  being  so,  open 
the  Bible,  and  where  the  name  of  God  occurs  substitute 
that  of  the  Son  ;  and  where  the  name  of  the  Son 
occurs,  that  of  God.  "  The  Son  sent  his  beloved  Son  ; " 
—  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come  ;  glorify  thy  Son  that  thy 
Son  also  may  glorify  Thee."  I  will  not,  for  the  sake  of 
confuting  any  error,  put  a  change  on  this  most  solemn 
and  affecting  passage.  I  have  felt  throughout  the  pain- 
ful incongruity  of  introducing  conceptions  that  ought  to 
be  accompanied  with  very  different  feelings  and  associa- 
tions into  such  a  discussion,  and  I  am  not  disposed  to 
pursue  the  mode  just  suggested  of  exemplifying  the 
nature  of  the  errors  against  which  I  am  contending. 
But  one  who  had  never  seen  the  New  Testament 
before,  would  need  but  to  read  a  page  of  it,  to  satisfy  him- 
self that  '  the  Son  of  God,'  and  'God,'  are  not  converti- 
ble terms,  but  mean  something  very  different. 

But  a  Trinitarian  may  answer  me,  that  the  word  '  God ' 
in  the  New  Testament  almost  always  denotes  either  the 
Trinity  or  the  Father ;  and  that  he  does  not  suppose  it 


46      REASONING  TROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  be  applied  to  the  Son  in  more  than  about  a  dozen 
instances.  One  would  think  that  this  state  of  the  case 
must,  at  the  first  view  of  it,  startle  a  defender  of  the 
doctrine,  that  Christ  is  God.  It  is  strange  that  one  equal 
to  the  Father  in  every  divine  perfection  should  so  rarely 
be  denoted  by  that  name  to  which  he  is  equally  entitled. 
But  passing  over  this  difficulty,  what  is  the  purport  of 
the  answer  ?  You  maintain  that  Christ  is  God,  that 
the  Son  is  God.  If  so,  are  not  all  the  acts  of  God 
his  acts  ?  Is  not  all  that  can  be  affirmed  of  God  to  be 
affirmed  of  him  ?  You  hesitate  perhaps  ;  but  there  is  no 
reason  why  you  should.  If  there  be  any  meaning  in 
the  New  Testament,  these  questions  must  be  answered 
in  the  negative.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  whatever  you  may 
imagine,  you  do  not  use  the  term  '  God '  in  the  same 
sense  when  applied  to  the  Son,  as  when  applied  by 
you  to  what  you  call  the  Trinity,  or  to  the  First  Per- 
son of  the  Trinity  ;  or  as  when  applied  either  by  you 
or  us  to  the  Supreme  Being.  But,  as  regards  the  ques- 
tion under  discussion,  the  word  admits  of  no  variety 
of  signification.  The  proposition,  then,  that  Christ  is 
God,  is  so  thoroughly  irreconcilable  with  the  New 
Testament,  that  no  one  could  think  of  maintaining  it 
except  through  a  confused  misapprehension  of  its 
meaning. 

Here,  then,  I  close  the  argument  from  Scripture,  not 
because  it  is  exhausted ;  but  because  it  must  be  useless 
to  pursue  it  further.  I  will  only  add  a  few  general 
remarks,  founded  in  part  on  what  has  been  already  said, 
concerning  the  passages  adduced  by  Trinitarians  in  sup- 
port of  their  doctrines. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.      47 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  the  pas- 
sages urged  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God,  are  alone 
sufficient  evidence  against  this  proposition.  A  large  por- 
tion of  them  contain  language,  which  cannot  be  used  con- 
cerning God,  which  necessarily  distinguishes  Christ  from 
God,  and  which  clearly  represents  him  as  an  inferior  and 
dependent  being. 

In  the  next  place,  I  wish  to  recall  another  remark 
to  the  recollection  of  my  readers.  It  is,  that  the  doc- 
trines maintained  by  Trinitarians,  upon  the  supposition  of 
their  possibility  and  truth,  must  have  been  taught  very 
differently  from  the  manner  in  which  they  are  supposed 
to  be.  Let  any  one  recollect,  that  there  is  no  pre- 
tence THAT  ANY  PASSAGE  IN  SCRIPTURE  AFFIRMS  THE 
DOCTRINE   OF  THE    TRINITY,   OR    THAT   OF  THE    DOUBLE 

nature  of  Christ  ;  and  then  let  him  look  over  the 
passages  brought  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God  ;  let  him 
consider  how  they  are  collected  from  one  place  and 
another,  how  thinly  they  are  scattered  through  the  New 
Testament,  and  how  incidentally  they  are  introduced ; 
let  him  observe  that,  in  a  majority  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  there  is  not  one  on  which  a  wary  dispu- 
tant would  choose  to  rely  ;  and  then  let  him  remember 
the  general  tenor  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  the 
undisputed  meaning  of  far  the  greater  part  of  their  lan- 
guage in  relation  to  this  subject.  Having  done  this,  I 
think  he  may  safely  say,  before  any  critical  examination 
of  the  meaning  of  those  passages,  that  their  meaning 
must  have  been  mistaken  ;  that  the  evidence  adduced 
is  altogether  defective  in  its  general  aspect ;  and  that  it 
is  not,  by  such  detached  passages  as  these,  taken  in  a 
sense  opposed  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  that 


48  REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

a  doctrine  like  that  in  question  can  be  established.  We 
might  as  reasonably  attempt  to  prove,  in  opposition  to 
the  daily  witness  of  the  heavens,  that  there  are  three 
suns  instead  of  but  one,  by  building  an  argument  on  the 
accounts  which  we  have  of  parhelia. 

Another  remark  of  some  importance   is,  that  as  Trin- 
itarians differ  much  in  their  modes  of  explaining  the  doc- 
trine, so  are  they  not  well   agreed   in   their   manner  of 
defending  it.     When   the  doctrine  was  first  introduced, 
it    was  defended,  as  Bishop  Hcrsley    tells  us,  "  by  argu- 
ments drawn  from  Platonic  principles."  #     To  say  noth- 
ing of  these,  some  of  the  favorite  arguments  from  Scrip- 
ture of  the  ancient  Fathers,  were  such  as  no  Trinitarian 
at  the  present  day  would  choose  to  insist  upon.     One  of 
those,    for    instance,  which  was  adduced  to   prove   the 
Trinity,  is  found  in  Ecclesiastes,  iv.  12.     "A  threefold 
cord  is  not  soon  broken."     Not  a  few   of  the  Fathers, 
says  Whitby,  explain  this  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity .f 
Another  passage  often   adduced,  and   among  others  by 
Athanasius,  as  declarative  of  the  generation  of  the  Son 
from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  was  discovered  in  the 
first  verse  of  the  45th  Psalm.     The  argument  founded 
upon  this,  disappears  altogether  in  our  common  version, 
which  renders  it :  "  My  heart  is  inditing  a  good  matter." 
But  the  word  in  the  Septuagint,  corresponding  to  matter 
in    the    common   version,   is   Logos :    and   the   Fathers 
understood  the  passage  thus ;  My  heart  is  throwing  out 

*  Charge  IV.  §  2,  published  in  Horsley's  Tracts  in  Controversy 
with  Dr.  Priestley. 

t  Dissertatio  de  Scripturarum  Interpretatione  secundum  Patrum 
Commentarios,  pp.  95,.  96. 


REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     49 

a  good  Logos.*  A  proof,  that  the  second  person  in  the 
Trinity  became  incarnate,  was  found  in  Proverbs  ix.  1. 
"Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house  ;"-)-  for  the  second 
person,  or  the  Son,  was  regarded  in  the  theology  of  the 
times  as  the  Wisdom  of  the  Father.  These  are  merely 
specimens  taken  from  many  of  a  similar  character, 
a  number  more  of  which  may  be  found  in  the  work  of 
Whitby  just  referred  to  in  the  margin.  Since  the  first 
introduction  of  the  doctrine,  the  mode  of  its  defence  has 
been  continually  changing.  As  more  just  notions 
respecting  the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures have  slowly  made  their  way,  one  passage  after 
another  has  been  dropped  from  the  Trinitarian  roll. 
Some,  which  are  retained  by  one  expositor,  are  given 
up  by  another.  Even  two  centuries  ago,  Calvin  threw 
away,  or  depreciated  the  value  of  many  texts,  which 
most  Trinitarians  would  think  hardly  to  be  spared. 
There  are  very  few  of  any  importance  in  the  controversy, 
the  Orthodox  exposition  of  which  has  not  been  aban- 
doned by  some  one  or  more  of  the  principal  Trinitarian 
critics  among  Protestants.  Among  Catholics,  there  are 
many  by  whom  it  is  rather  affirmed  than  conceded,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be  proved  from  the 
Scriptures,  but  rests  for  its  support  upon  the  tradition  of 
the  Church, 

Whence,  then,  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  derived  ? 
The  answer  to  this  question  is  important.     Reason  and 

*  Dissertatio  de  Scripturarum  Interpretatione  secundum  Patrum 
Commentaries,  p.  75. 
t  Ibid.  p.  92. 

5 


50       REASONING  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Scripture  have  borne  their  testimony  against  the  doctrine  ; 
and  I  am  now  about  to  call  another  witness,  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History. 


SECTION  IV. 


ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

We  can  trace  the  history  of  this  doctrine,  and  dis- 
cover its  source,  not  in  the  Christian  revelation,  but  in 
the  Platonic  philosophy  ;  *  which  was  the  prevalent  phi- 
losophy during  the  first  ages  after  the '  introduction  of 
Christianity ;  and  of  which  all  the  more  eminent  Chris- 
tian writers,  the  Fathers,  as  they  are  called,  were,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  disciples.  They,  as  others  have 
often  done,  blended  their  philosophy  and  their  religion 
into  one  complex  and  heterogeneous  system ;  and 
taught  the  doctrines  of  the  former  as  those  of  the  latter. 
In  this  manner,  they  introduced  errors  into  the  popu- 
lar faith.  "  It  is  an  old  complaint  of  learned  men/' 
says  Mosheim,  "  that  the  Fathers,  or  teachers  of  the 
ancient  church,  were  too  much  inclined  to  the  philoso- 
phy of  Plato,  and  rashly  confounded  what  was  taught 
by  that  philosopher  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  our 
Saviour ;  in  consequence  of  which,  the  religion  of 
Heaven  was  greatly  corrupted,  and  the  truth  much  obscur- 

*  I  state  the  proposition  in  this  general  form,  in  which  the  author- 
ities to  be  adduced  directly  apply  to  it.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the  Logos,  and  of  his  divinity,  in  an 
inferior  sense  of  that  term,  which  was  the  germ  of  the  Trinity,  was 
immediately  derived  from  Philo,  the  Jewish  Plato,  as  he  has  been 
called,  which  fact  I  shall  hereafter   have    occasion  to  advert  to. 


52  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

ed."  *  This  passage  is  from  the  Dissertation  of  Mo- 
sheim,  Concerning  the  Injury  done  to  the  Church  by  the 
later  Platonists.  In  the  same  dissertation,  after  stating 
some  of  the  obstructions  thrown  in  the  way  of  Christian- 
ity, by  those  of  the  later  Platonists  who  were  its  ene- 
mies, he  proceeds  to  say  :  "  But  these  evils  were  only 
external,  and  although  they  were  injurious  to  our  most 
holy  religion,  and  delayed  its  progress,  yet  they  did  not 
corrupt  its  very  nature,  and  disease,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
its  vitals.  More  fatal  distempers  afflicted  Christianity, 
after  this  philosophy  had  entered  the  very  limits  of  the 
sacred  city,  and  had  built  a  habitation  for  herself  in  the 
minds  of  those  to  whom  the  business  of  instruction  was 
committed.  There  is  nothing,  the  most  sacred  in  our 
faith,  which  from  that  time  was  not  profaned,  and  did 
not  lose  a  great  part  of  its  original  and  natural  form."  f 
"  Few  of  the  learned,"  he  adds  in  another  place,  "  are 
so  unacquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history,  as  to  be  igno- 
rant what  a  great  number  of  errors,  and  most  prepos- 
terous opinions,  flowed  in  from  this  impure  source."  J 
Among  the  false  doctrines  thus  introduced  from  the 
Platonic  philosophy,  is  to  be  reckoned,  preeminently, 
that  of  the  Trinity.  Gibbon  says,  with  a  sneer,  that 
"  the  Athenian  sage  [Plato]  marvellously  anticipated  one 
of  the  most  surprising  discoveries  of  the  Christian  reve- 
lation." In  making  this  assertion,  Gibbon  adopted  a 
popular  error,  for  which  there  is  no  foundation.  Nothing 
resembling  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  to  be  found  in 

*  Mosheim,  De  turbata  per  recentiores  Platonicos  Ecclesia   Com- 
mentatio,  §  vi. 

t  Ibid.  §  xxxiii.       ^  $  Ibid.  §  xlviii. 


ORIGIN  OF    THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY.         53 

the  writings  of  Plato  himself.*  But  there  is  no  question 
that,  in  different  forms,  it  was  a  favorite  doctrine  of  the 
later  Platonists,  equally  of  those  who  were  not  Christians 
as  of  those  who  were.  Both  the  one  and  the  other 
class  expressed  the  doctrine  in  similar  terms,  explained 
it  in  a  similar  manner,  and  defended  it,  as  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  allowed,  by  similar  arguments  ;  and 
both  appealed  in  its  support  to  the  authority  of  Plato. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  Trini- 
tarian and  Platonizing  Fathers  (he  nourished  about  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century)  endeavours  to  show, 
that  the  doctrine  was  taught  by  that  philosopher.  He 
quotes  a  passage  from  one  of  the  epistles  ascribed  to 
him,f  in  which  mention  is  made  of  a  second  and  third 
principle,  beside  the  "  King  of  all  things."  In  this  pas- 
sage, he  observes,  he  "  can  understand  nothing  to  be 
meant  but  the  Sacred  Trinity  ;  the  third  principle  being 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  second  principle  being  the  Son, 
by  whom  all  things  were  created  according  to  the  will  of 
the  Father."  J     A  similar  interpretation  of  the  passage 

*  Mosheim  says,  ironically,  "  Certainly  the  three  famous  hyposta- 
ses of  the  later  Platonists  may  be  discovered  in  the  Timeeus  of  Plato, 
as  easily  and  readily  as  the  three  principles  of  the  chemists,  salt,  sul- 
phur, and  mercury."  "  Certe  tres  illas  celeberrimas  hypostases  Pla- 
tonicorum  in  Timaso  Platonis  ostendere,  aeque  facile  et  promptum  est, 
atque  tria  chymicorum  principia,  sal,  sulphur,  et  mercurium  ex  hoc 
dialogo  eruere."  (See  his  Notes  to  his  Latin  Translation  of  Cud- 
worth's  Intellectual  System.  2  Ed.  Tom.  I.  p.  901.)  The  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  as  little  to  be  discovered  in  any  other  genuine  writing 
of  Plato,  as  in  the  Timseus. 

t  The  second  epistle  to  Dionysius  ;  which,  with  all  the  other  epis- 
tles ascribed  to  Plato,  is  now  generally  regarded  as  spurious. 

t  Stromat.  Lib.  V.  p.  710.     Ed,  Potter. 

5* 


54         ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY, 

is  referred  to  by  Eusebius  ;  *  and  in  the  oration  which  he 
ascribes  to  Constantine,  as  addressed  "  To  the  Assem- 
bly of  Saints,"  Plato  is  eulogized  as  teaching,  conforma- 
bly to  the  truth,  that  "  there  is  a  First  God,  the  Father, 
and  a  Second  God,  the  Logos  or  Son."  f  Augustine  tells 
us  in  his  Confessions,  that  he  found  the  true  doctrine 
concerning  the  Logos  in  a  Latin  translation  of  some 
Platonic  writings,  which  the  providence  of  God  had 
thrown  in  his  way. J  Speaking  of  those  ancient  philoso- 
phers, who  were  particularly  admired  by  the  later  Pla- 
tonists,  he  says  ;  "  If  these  men  could  revive,  and  live 
over  again  their  lives  with  us,  with  the  change  of  a  few 
words  and  sentences,  they  would  become  Christians,  as 
very  many  Platonists  of  our  own  time  have  done."  <§> 
Basnage  had  good  reason  for  observing,  that  the  Fathers 
almost  made  Plato  to  have  been  a  Christian,  before  the 
introduction  of  Christianity.  Immediately  after  this  re- 
mark, Basnage  quotes  a  writer  of  the  fifth  century,  who 
expresses  with  honest  zeal  his  admiration  at  the  supposed 
fact,  that  the  Athenian  sage  should  have  so  marvellously 
anticipated  the  most  mysterious  doctrines  of  revelation.  || 
I  will  produce  a  few  passages  from  modern  Trinita- 
rian writers,  to  show  the  near  resemblance  between  the 
Christian  and  Platonic  Trinity.  The  very  learned 
Cudworth,  in  his  great  work  on  the  Intellectual  System, 
has   brought  together  all  that  antiquity  could  furnish  to 

*  Praeparatio  Evangelica.     Lib.  XI.     cap.  xv. 
t  Cap.  ix. 

t  Tu,  Domine  —  procurasti  mibi —  quosdam  Platonicorum  libros, 
&c.    Opp.  I.  p.  128.     Basil.     1556. 

§   Lib.  de  Vera.  Religione.     Opp.  I.  p.  704. 

||  Basnage,  Histoire  des  Juifs.     Liv.  IV.  ch.  iv.  §  20. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY.  55 

illustrate  the  doctrine.     He  institutes  a  long  and  minute 
comparison  between  the  forms  in  which  it  was  held  by 
the  Heathen  Platonists,  and  that  in  which  it  was  held  by 
the  Christian  Fathers.     Toward  the  conclusion  of  this 
we  find  the  following  passages  : 

"  Thus  have  we  given  a  true  and  full  account,  how, 
according  to  Athanasius,  the  three  divine  hypostases, 
though  not  monoousious,  but  homooiisious  only,  are  really 
but  one  God  or  Divinity.  In  all  which  doctrine  of  his, 
there  is  nothing  but  what  a  true  and  genuine  Platonist 
would  readily  subscribe  to."* 

"As  the  Platonic  Pagans  after  Christianity  did  approve 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  the  Logos,  as  that 
which  was  exactly  agreeable  with  their  own ;  so  did  the 
generality  of  the  Christian  Fathers  before  and  after  the 
Nicene  council,  represent  the  genuine  Platonic  Trinity 
as  really  the  same  thing  with  the  Christian,  or  as 
approaching  so  near  to  it,  that  they  differed  chiefly  in 
circumstances,  or  the  manner  of  expression."  f 

In  proof  of  this,  Cud  worth  produces  many  passages 
similar  to  those  which  I  have  quoted  from  the  Fathers. 
Athanasius,  he  observes,  "  sends  the  Arians  to  school  to 
the  Platonists."  J 

Basnage  was  not  disposed  to  allow  such  a  resem- 
blance between  the  Christian   and  Platonic   Trinity,   as 

*  Page  620.  t  Page  621. 

t  Page  623.  The  study  of  Cudworth  is  strongly  recommended  by 
Bishop  Horsley  for  the  information  which  his  work  contains  respect- 
ing the  tenets  of  the  Platonists.  See  his  Charge,  before  quoted, 
V.  §  5.  I  would  recommend  it  also,  with  particular  reference  to  tha 
subject  before  us;  for  I  know  no  other  work  from  which  so  much  in- 
formation can  be  derived  concerning  the  origin  of  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity. 


56  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

that  which  Cudworth  maintains,  and  has  written  ex- 
pressly in  refutation  of  the  latter.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  into  this  controversy.  The  sentence  with  which 
he  concludes  his  remarks*  on  the  subject  is  enough 
for  our  purpose.  "  Christianity,  in  its  triumph,  has  often 
reflected  honor  on  the  Platonists  ;  and  as  the  Christians 
took  some  pride  in  finding  the  Trinity  taught  by  a  phi- 
losopher, so  the  Platonists  were  proud  in  their  turn  to 
see  the  Christians  adopt  their  principles." 

I  quote  the  authorities  of  learned  Trinitarians,  rather 
than  adduce  the  facts  on  which  they  are  founded, 
because  the  facts  could  not  be  satisfactorily  stated  and 
explained  in  a  small  compass.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that 
Trinitarians  in  admitting  the  influence  of  the  Platonic 
doctrine  upon  the  faith  of  the  early  Christians,  of  course 
do  not  regard  the  Platonic  as  the  original  source  of  the 
Orthodox  doctrine,  but  many  of  them  represent  it  as 
having  occasioned  errors  and  heresies,  and  particularly 
the  Arian  heresy.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  Petavius,  who 
in  his  Theologica  Dogmata,*]"  after  giving  an  account  of 
the  Platonic  notions  concerning  the  Trinity,  thus  remarks. 

"  I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  subject  on 
account  of  which  I  have  entered  into  so  full  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  opinions  of  the  Platonists  concerning  the 
Trinity  ;  namely,  in  what  manner  this  doctrine  was  con- 
ceived of  by  some  of  the  ancients,  and  how  the  fiction 
of  Plato  concerning  the  Trinity  was  gradually  introduced 
into  Christianity,  by  those  of  the  Platonists  who  had 
become  converts  to  our  religion,  or  by  others  who  had 

*  Histoire  des  Juifs.     Liv.  IV.  ch.  iii.  iv. 
t  De  Trinitate.     Lib.  1   cap.  iii.  §  l. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY.  57 

been  in  any  way  indoctrinated  in  the  Platonic  Philoso- 
phy. They  are  to  be  separated  into  two  classes.  One 
consists  of  such  as,  properly  speaking,  were  unworthy 
the  name  of  Christians,  being  heretics.  The  other  of 
those  who  were  true  Christians,  Catholics,  and  saints ; 
but  who,  through  the  circumstances  of  their  age,  the 
mystery  not  yet  being  properly  understood,  threw  out 
dangerous  propositions  concerning  it." 

The  very  Orthodox  Gale,  in  his  Court  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, says  ;  "  The  learned  Christians,  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  Origen,  fyc,  made  use  of  the  Pythagorean  and 
Platonic  philosophy,  which  was  at  this  time  wholly  in 
request,  as  a  medium  to  illustrate  and  prove  the  great 
mysteries  of  faith,  touching  the  Divine  Xoyog,  word,  men- 
tioned John  i.  1.  hoping  by  such  symbolisings,  and 
claiming  kindred  with  these  philosophic  notions  and 
traditions  (originally  Jewish)  touching  the  Platonic 
Xoyog,  vovg,  and  rgiag,  [the  Platonic  trinity,]  they  might 
gain  very  much  credit  and  interest  amongst  these  Pla- 
tonic Sophistes."  * 

Beausobre,  in  his  History  of  Manichaeism,  adverts 
to  this  subject.  His  opinion  concerning  the  resemblance 
of  the  Platonic  and  Christian  Trinity  appears  in  the 
following  passage. 

"  Such,  according  to  Chalcidius,f  was  the  Platonic 
Trinity.  It  has  been  justly  regarded  as  defective.  1.  It 
speaks  of  a  first,  a  second,  and  a  third  God;  expressions 
which  Christianity  has  banished.  Still,  as  appears  from 
what  I  have  said,  Plato  really  acknowledged  but  a  single 


*  Part  III.  B.  ii.  c.  i.  §  9. 

t  Chalcidius  was  a  Platonic  philosopher,  who  lived  before  the  close 
of  the  fourth  century. 


58         ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

God,  because  he  admitted,  properly  speaking,  but  a  single 
First  Cause,  and  a  single  Monarch.  2.  This  theology 
is  still  further  censured  for  the  division  of  the  Divine 
Persons,  who  are  not  only  distinguished  but  separated. 
The  objection  is  well  grounded.  But  this  error  may  be 
pardoned  in  a  philosopher ;  since  it  is  excused  in  a  great 
number  of  Christian  writers,  who  have  had  the  lights  of 
the  Gospel.  3.  In  the  last  place,  fault  is  found  with 
this  theology  on  account  of  the  inequality  of  the  Persons. 
There  is  a  supreme  God,  to  whom  the  two  others  are 
subject.  There  was  the  same  defect  in  the  theology  of 
the  Manichseans.  They  believed  the  consubstantiality 
of  the  Persons,  but  they  did  not  believe  their  equality. 
The  Son  was  below  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
below  the  Father  and  Son.  But  if  we  go  back  to  the 
time  when  Manichaeus  lived  [about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century],  we  shall  be  obliged  to  pardon  an  error 
which  was  then  very  general Huet,  who  ac- 
knowledges that  Origen  has  every  where  taught  that  the 
Son  is  inferior  to  the  Father,  excuses  him  on  the  ground, 
that  this  was  the  common  doctrine  of  those  writers  who 
preceded  the  Council  of  Nice.  And  Petavius  not  only 
does  not  deny  it,  but  proves  it  at  length  in  his  First  Book 
on  the  Trinity."  * 

There  has  been  no  more  noted  defender  of  the  doc- 
trine in  modern  times,  than  Bishop  Horsely.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  quotation  from  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley. 

"  I  am  very  sensible,  that  the  Platonizers  of  the  sec- 
ond century  were  the  Orthodox  of  that  age.  I  have 
not  denied  this.     On  the  contrary,  I  have  endeavoured 

*  Histoire  du  Manicheisme.     Tom.  I.  pp.  560,  561. 


ORIGIN  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY.         59 

to  show  that  their  Platonism  brings  no  imputation  upon 
their  Orthodoxy.  The  advocates  of  the  Catholic  faith 
in  modern  times  have  been  too  apt  to  take  alarm  at  the 
charge  of  Platonism.  I  rejoice  and  glory  in  the  op- 
probrium. I  not  only  confess,  but  I  maintain,  not  a 
perfect  agreement,  but  such  a  similitude,  as  speaks  a 
common  origin,  and  affords  an  argument  in  confirmation 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  [of  the  Trinity]  from  its  con- 
formity to  the  most  ancient  and  universal   traditions."  * 

In  another  place  he  says  ;  "It  must  be  acknowledged 
that  the  first  converts  from  the  Platonic  school  took 
advantage  of  the  resemblance  between  the  Evangelic 
and  Platonic  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  the  Godhead,  to 
apply  the  principles  of  their  old  philosophy  to  the  expli- 
cation and  confirmation  of  the  articles  of  their  faith. 
They  defended  it  by  arguments  drawn  from  Platonic 
principles,  and  even  propounded  it  in  Platonic  lan- 
guage." f 

I  might  produce  more  authorities  in  support  of  the 
facts  which  have  been  stated.  But  I  conceive  it  to  be 
unnecessary.  The  fair  inference  from  these  facts,  every 
reader  is  able  to  draw  for  himself.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  not  a  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  but 
a  fiction  of  the  school  of  the  later  Platonists,  introduced 
into  our  religion  by  the  Fathers,  who  were  admirers  and 
disciples  of  the  philosophy  taught  in  this  school.  The 
want  of  all  mention  of  it  in  the  Scriptures  is  abundantly 
compensated  by  the  ample  space  which  it  occupies  in 
the  writings  of  the  heathen  Platonists,  and  of  the  Plato- 
nizing  Fathers. 

*  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  Letter  13. 
t  Charge  iv.  §  2. 


60  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

But  what  has  been  stated  is  not  the  only  evidence 
which  Ecclesiastical  History  affords  against  this  doctrine. 
The  conclusion  to  which  we  have  just  arrived  is  con- 
firmed by  other  facts.  But  these,  however  important, 
I  will  here  but  barely  mention.  They  are  the  facts  of 
its  gradual  introduction;  of  its  slow  growth  to  its 
present  form ;  of  the  strong  opposition  which  it  encoun- 
tered ;  and  of  its  tardy  reception  among  the  great  body 
of  common  Christians.* 

Cudworth  after  remarking  "  that  not  a  few  of  those 
ancient  Fathers,  who  were  therefore  reputed  Orthodox 
because  they  zealously  opposed  Arianism,"  namely 
Gregory  Nyssen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  others,  enter- 
tained the  opinion  that  the  three  persons  in  the  Trinity 
were  three  distinct  individuals,  "  like  three  individual 
men,  Thomas,  Peter,  and  John";  the  divine  nature 
being  common  to  the  former  as  the  human  nature  is  to 
the  latter  ;  observes  that  "  some  would  think  that  the 
ancient  and  genuine  Platonic  Trinity  taken  with  all  its 
faults  is  to  be  preferred  before  this  Trinity."  He  then 
says ;  "  But  as  this  Trinity  came  afterwards  to  be 
decried  for  tritheistic ;  so  in  the  room  thereof,  started 
there  up  that  other  Trinity  of  persons  numerically  the 
same,  or  having  all  one  and  the  same  singular  existent 
essence ;  a  doctrine  which  seemeth  not  to  have  been 
owned  by  any  public  authority  in  the  Christian  church, 
save  that  of  the  Lateran  council  only."  f 


*  On  these  subjects,  see  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions 
concerning  Jesus  Christ. 

t  Intellectual  System,  pp.  603 — 604. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.      61 

This  is  the  present  Orthodox  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  Cudworth  refers  to  the  fourth  general 
Lateran  council,  held  in  1215,  under  Pope  Innocent  the 
Third.  The  same  council  which,  in  the  depth  of  the 
dark  ages,  established  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trini- 
ty, established,  likewise,  that  of  Transubstantiation  ;  en- 
forced with  the  utmost  rigor  the  persecution  of  heretics, 
whom  it  ordered  to  be  sought  out  and  exterminated ;  and 
prepared  the    way    for  the  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition, 

which  were  shortly  after  established.* 

.  —  « .  ■ 

*  See  Fleury,  Histoire  Ecclesiastique.    An.   1215. 


6 


SECTION  V. 

CONCERNING    THE    HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF     THE 
HYPOSTATIC    UNION. 

It  may  throw  some  further  light  upon  the  human  ori- 
gin of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  briefly  to  notice  the 
history  of  that  of  the  Hypostatic  Union. 

By  Trinitarians  it  is  represented  as  a  doctrine  of  funda- 
mental importance,  that  Christ  was  at  once  God  and 
man,  the  two  natures  being  so  united  as  to  constitute 
but  one  person.  It  is  this,  indeed,  which  is  supposed 
to  give  its  chief  interest  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
since  only  he  who  was  at  once  God  and  man  could,  it  is 
said,  have  made  for  men  that  infinite  atonement,  which 
the  justice  of  God,  or  rather  the  justice  of  the  Father, 
required.  But  in  the  minds  of  most  of  those  who  pro- 
fess the  doctrine,  it  exists,  I  conceive,  merely  as  a  form 
of  words,  not  significant  of  any  conceptions  however 
dim  or  incongruous.  They  have  not  even  formed  an 
imagination,  possible  or  impossible,  of  what  is  meant  by 
the  Hypostatic  Union.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
while  new  attempts  to  explain  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  new  hypotheses  and  illustrations  of  it,  have 
been  abundant,  this  other  doctrine  has,  in  modern  times, 
been  generally  left  in  the  nakedness  of  its  verbal  state- 
ment ;  that,  "  the  Godhead  and  manhood  being  joined 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  63 

together  in  one  person  never  to  be  divided,  there  is 
one  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man,  who  truly  suffered, 
was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried." 

It  was  in  the  fifth  century  that  the  doctrine  assumed 
its  present  form.  The  Fathers  of  the  second  century 
believed  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  or  the  Son  of 
God,  they  believed  that  lie  became  a  man,  that  is,  they 
believed  that  he  manifested  himself  in  a  human  body  ; 
but  their  conceptions  concerning  the  particular  nature 
of  the  relation  between  the  divinity  and  humanity  of 
Christ  were  obscure  and  unsettled.  Their  general 
notions  respecting  the  Incarnation  may  more  easily  be 
ascertained,  though  they  have  not  till  of  late  been 
made  the  subject  of  mu  ch  critical  inquiry. 

In  Justin  Martyr,  there  is,  I  think,  but  one  passage 
concerning  the  mode  and  results  of  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  natures  in  Christ,  which  has  been  regard- 
ed of  much  importance  ;  and  that  has  been  differently 
explained,  and  as  the  text  now  stands,  is,  I  believe, 
unintelligible.  #      What,  however,  is  more  important,  it 

*  Justin  [Apologia  Sec.  p.  123.  ed.  Thirlb.]  is  speaking  of  the  su- 
periority of  Christ  to  all  other  lawgivers.  These,  he  admits,  pos- 
sessed a  portion  of  the  Logos,  that  is,  were  enlightened,  in  a  certain 
degree,  by  the  Wisdom  of  God  ;  but  Christ  was  the  Logos  himself; 
therefore  the  doctrines  he  taught  and  Christians  believed  (<r«  fipirsga), 
were  far  higher  than  all  which  had  been  taught  before.  The  pas" 
sage  in  question,  by  the  insertion  of  a  comma  and  a  letter,  may  re. 
ceive  a  certain  meaning,  but  one  which  throws  little  light  on  the 
subject.  — •  MiyaXtioTBoct  — <paivtroa  roc  h/^'iTtoK  £/«  <rxro  [,]  Xoyixov  <ro 
[l.  toi\  oXov  tov  <pxvivT/t  di '  hfAu,;  Xa/ff-Tov  ytyovivxt,  xx)  cuf/.x,  xu)  Xoyot"1 
xcti  ■^u^m.     "  It  appears  that  our    doctrines    are   far   superior,   for 


64 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 


appears  from  the  general  tenor  of  his  language  on  this 
subject,  that  Justin  regarded  the  Logos  alone  as,  prop- 
erly speaking,  Christ  himself.  His  notions  of  the  incar- 
nation of  the  Logos  were  essentially  those  which  we 
usually  connect  with  that  word,  as  denoting  the  assump- 
tion of  a  body  by  a  spiritual  being,  and  not  as  implying 
any  union  or  combination  of  a  superior  nature  with  the 
human.  Though  he  uses  the  term  'man7  in  reference 
to  the  animate  body  of  Christ,  yet  the  real  agent  and 
sufferer  whom  he  seems  always  to  have  had  in  view,  is 
the  Logos;  for  the  conceptions  of  Justin  concerning  the 
Logos  were  not  such  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  his  suffer- 
ing. Speaking  of  the  agony  of  Christ  in  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  he  says,  it  was  recorded,  "  that  we  might 
know  that  it  was  the  will  of  the  Father  that  his  Son 
should  truly  thus  suffer  for  our  sakes  ;  and  that  we 
might  not  say  that  he  being  the  Son  of  God  had  no  feel- 
ing of  what  was  done  to  him  or  what  befell  him."  *  In 
later  times,  indeed,  language  was  used,  and  its  use  has 
continued  to  our  own  day — language,  not  utterly  intoler- 
able, only  because  it  is  utterly  without  meaning  —  in 
which  God  is  spoken  of  as  having  suffered  and  been  cru- 
cified. But  Justin,  and  other  early  Fathers,  when  they 
spoke  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Logos,  meant  what  they 
said.  This  is  evident  not  merely  from  passages  as  ex- 
plicit as  that  just  quoted,  but  from  the  manner  in  which 

this  reason,  that  the  whole  Christ  who  appeared  for  us,  body,  Logos, 
and  animal  soul,  pertained  to  the  Logos;  (KoytKov  yiyovivxt.) 

Perhaps  the  use  of  such  language  may  be  illustrated  by  a  passage 
of  Origen  [Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  III.  §.41.0pp,I.  p.  474.],  which  will  be 
quoted  hereafter. 

*  Dial,  cum  Try  ph.  pp.  361,  362, 


OF  THE    HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  65 

they  regarded  the  doctrine  of  those  who  denied  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Logos,  and  maintained  that  the  divinity 
in  Christ  was  the  divinity  of  the  Father.  Such  opinions, 
it  was  affirmed,  necessarily  led  to  the  belief,  that  the 
Father  himself  had  suffered.  Those  who  held  them 
were  charged  with  this  belief,  and  hence  denominated 
Patripassians.  The  charge,  without  doubt,  was  unjust  ; 
but  it  shows  that  the  doctrine  of  those  who  made  it  was, 
that  the  Logos,  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son,  had  suffer- 
ed in  Christ.  If  they  had  not  held  this  belief  concern- 
ing the  Logos  or  Son,  there  would  have  been  no  pretence 
for  charging  their  opponents  with  holding  a  corresponding 
belief  concerning  the  Father ;  especially  as  their  oppo- 
nents maintained,  what  they  themselves  did  not  main- 
tain, that  Christ  was  properly  and  in  all  respects  a  man  : 
and  this  being  so,  had  no  occasion  to  turn  their  thoughts 
to  any  other  sufferer  than  the  man  Christ. 

The  opinions  of  Irenaeus  were  similar  to  those  of  Justin. 
He  regarded  the  Logos  as  supplying  in  Christ  the  place 
of  the  intelligent  soul  or  mind  of  man.  I  use  these  expres- 
sions, because  Irenaeus,  in  common  with  other  ancient 
philosophers,  distinguished  between  the  mind,  intellect. 
or  spirit,  and  the  principle  of  life,  or  animal  soul,  which 
was  also  considered  as  the  seat  of  the  passions.  The 
vagueness  with  which  the  names  were  used,  denot- 
ing these  two  principles  in  man,  is  one  cause  of  obscuritv 
in  the  present  inquiry.  But  Irenaeus,  it  appears,  conceiv- 
ed that  the  Logos  in  becoming  incarnate,  assumed  only 
a  body  and  an  animal  soul,  the  place  of  the  human  in-. 


6* 


66  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

tellect  being  supplied  by  the  Logos  himself.  *  In  hold- 
ing this  doctrine,  he,  though  the  champion  of  the  church 
against  the  heretics  of  his  own  day,  was  himself  a  pre- 
cursor both  of  the  Arian  and  the  Apollinarian  heresies 
concerning  the  Incarnation  ;  for  the  error  of  both  consist- 
ed in  regarding  the  Logos  as  having  supplied  the  place 
of  the  human  intellect  in  Christ. 

In  opposition  to  those  Gnostics  who  maintained  that 
the  iEon,  as  they  denominated  him,  or  the  divine  being, 
Christ,  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  departed  from  the 
man,  Jesus,  and  left  him  to  suffer  alone,  Irenaeus  often 
speaks  of  the  proper  sufferings  of  the  Logos,  f 

*  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Miinscher,  in  his  Handbuch  der 
christlichen  Dogmengeschichte  Band  II.  §.  181.  Miinscher,  how- 
ever, is  incorrect  in  representing  Irenaeus  as  having  supposed  the  Lo- 
gos to  have  assumed  a  human  body  only.  According  to  Irenasus,  an 
animal  soul  (anima,  ^u^ii)  was  also  conjoined  with  the  Logos.  In 
opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  proper  hu- 
man body,  he  says  (Lib.   111.  cap.  xxn.  §.  2.)  :     "  If  the  Son  of  God 

had  received  nothing  from  Mary, he  would  not  have  said  my 

soul  (h  ^t%ri  ftov)  is  exceedingly  sorrowful."  Dr.  Priestley,  on  the 
other  hand,  contends  (Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  p.  203.  seqq.) 
that, according  to  Irenaeus,  Christ  had  a  proper  human  soul.  His  er- 
ror arises  from  his  not  adverting  to  the  distinction  above  mentioned, 
between  the  intellect  or  spirit,  and  the  animal  soul.  This  distinction 
is  stated  and  illustrated  by  Irenasus,  Lib.  V.  cap.  vi.  §.  1.  The 
latter  passage  is  to  be  compared  with  that  quoted  by  Dr.  Priestley,  of 
which  his  rendering  is  erroneous. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  mistake  of  Miinscher  is  followed  by 
Neander  (Geschichte  der  christ.  Relig.  u.  Kirche,  Band.  I.  s.  1063.) 
who  says,  speaking  of  the  early  opinions  concerning  Christ ;  "  The 
assumption  of  the  human  nature  was  conceived  of  merely  as  the  as- 
sumption of  a  human  body,  as  we  find  it  clearly  expressed  by  Ire- 
nseus." 

t  See  many  passages  to  this  effect  collected  by  Jackson  in  his  An- 
notations to  Novatian,  pp.  357,358.   On  this  subject,  and  on  the  opin- 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNIOtf.  61 

Of  the  opinions  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  concerning 
the  mode  of  connexion  between  the  two  natures,  nothing 
I  think,  can    be  affirmed  definitely  and  with  assurance.  * 
Of  the  passages  adduced  from  him,  one  of  the  principal  has 
I  think,  no  relation  to  the  subject ;  but  refers  throug  hout  to 
the  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  all  true  believers.      It  is, 
however,  so  remarkable,  as  showing  how  loosely  language 
was  used,  on  which,   in  the  writings  of  the  earlier  Fath- 
ers, too  much  stress  has  often  been  laid,  that  it  deserves 
quotation.       "That  man,"   he  says,    "with   whom  the 
Logos  abides,  does  not  assume  various  appearances  ;  but 
preserves  the   form  of  the   Logos  ;  he  is   made  like   to 
God  ;  he  is  beautiful,  not  adorned  with  factitious  beauty, 
but  being  essential  beauty  ;  for  such  God  is.     That  man 
becomes  a  god,  because    God   so  wills  it.     It   has  been 
well  said  by  Heraclitus,  '  Men  are  gods   and  the  gods 

ions  of  the  earlier  Fathers  generally  respecting  the   Incarnation,  see 
also  Whiston's  Primitive  Christianity,  Vol.  IV.  pp.272  —  321. 

Dr.  Priestley  (History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  pp.  205,  215,  216.) 
produces  a  single  passage  from  Ireneeus  [L.  III.  c.  19.]  on  which  he  re- 
lies for  proof  that  Irenaeus  did  not  conceive  of  the  Logos  as  suffering. 
The  Greek  of  this  passage  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Priestley.  It  is  preserved 
by  Theodoret,  who  may  probably  have  somewhat  altered  the  expres- 
sions to  conform  them  to  his  own  opinions,  as  they  do  not  agree  with 
those  of  the  old  Latin  version  which  is  here  the  better  authority.  Nor 
does  Dr.  Priestley's  translation  correspond  even  with  the  Greek,  He 
renders;  "  The  Logos  being  quiescent  in  A/s  temptation,  crucifixion, 
and  death  " ;  thus  separating  the  Logos  from  Christ,  and  representing 
Christ  as  a  distinct  person  by  the  use  of  the  personal  pronoun,  his. 
The  Greek  is,  yitv^a^ovros  fx,i»  <rov  Aoyev  iv  ru  vu^a.^iaSa.1  xtci  rravptu- 
ff6<tixei\  a.<xo$vri<rxui ;  which  should  be  rendered  ;  The  Logos  being  qui- 
escent (i.  e.  suspending  his  powers)  when  tempted,  when  crucified, 
and  at  death. 

*See  the  quotations  from  and  references  to  him  in  Miinscher.  Ibid. 
§.  183. 


68  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

are  men  ' ;  for  the  Logos  himself,  a  conspicuous  mystery,, 
is  God  in  man,  and  man  becomes  a  god ;  the  Mediator  ac- 
complishing the  will  of  the  Father  ;  for  the  Mediator  is 
the  Logos  common  to  both  ;  being  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  Saviour  of  men,  being  his  minister  and  our  instruc- 
tor."  *  Archbishop  Potter,  in  the  notes  to  his  edition  of 
Clement,  observes,  "  that  Clement  often  says,  that  men 
through  piety  and  virtue  are  not  only  assimilated  to  God, 
but  as  it  were  transformed  into  the  divine  nature,  and 
become  gods."  f 

But  the  opinions  of  Clement  respecting  the  Incarna- 
tion appear  perhaps  with  sufficient  distinctness  in  what 
he  says  of  the  body  of  Christ.  According  to  him  ;  "  It 
would  be  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  the  body  of  our 
Saviour  required  the  aliments  necessary  to  others  for  its 
support.  He  took  food  not  for  the  sake  of  his  body, 
which  was  sustained  by  a  holy  power  ;  but  that  he  might 
not  give  occasion  to  those  with  whom  he  was  conversant 
to  form  a  wrong  opinion  concerning  him  ;  — as,  in  fact, 
some  [the  Docetae]  afterward  supposed,  that  he  had  been 

*  The  following  is  the  original  of  the  passage.  See  Potter's  edi- 
tion of  Clement,  p.  252.  I  have  altered  his  pointing,  as  the  sense 
seems  to  me  to  require,  and,  in  one  instance,  in  the  last  sentence,  $i»j 
is  printed  with  a  small  initial  letter,  where  he  has  used  a  capital. 

'O  ot  xvS^uvo?  ixtTtiSy  u  ffvioix$s  o  A.oyos,  ov  ToixiXXtrxi,  eu  vrkccrnrai  • 
ftogQbv  'i%u  T*'y  T°u  A-'oyov  •  l£of*oiourx4  <ri  0£<y  •  xxkog  Iittiv,  ch  xxWuirl- 
fyrxi  •  xxXXos  ten  to  xXnSnoi,  xx)  yx^  i  Qtof  ittrU.  &iif  o*s  ixuvcs  i 
iiS^wro;  yivtrai,  on  GouXitxi  o  Qtos  'Og0£s  x^x  tWiv  'Il^xxXurot, 
"Kii^wroi,  B-tot  •  3-lfl/,  xifyumoL  A.oyos  yx^  xvros,  ftverripoy  iptpxytf, 
0£6j  Iv  xv6ou<rv,  xx)  o  xi6^u-7roiy  Sits '  xa)  ro  SiXrux  rtu  Uxr^og  i  fiiei- 
rns  ixTtXir*  ptvivtis  y*(  «  Aoyoi,  o  xouos  eiftipoTt,  Qtou  ft.iv  vio;,  e*rh(  il 
iifguTui,  xx)  tov  fjttv  ttxxtvtf,  f)/xu»  Ji  *xt$xyuyof.      Paedagog.  II  J.  c.  1. 

t  See  note  II,  p.  71.  and  note  7,  p.  88.  In  the  latter  he  produces 
remarkable  examples  of  thi6  use  of  lanoruatre. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  69 

manifested  with  only  the  appearance  of  a  hody.  But  he 
was  wholly  impassible  ;  liable  to  be  affected  by  no  mo- 
tions either  of  pleasure  or  pain."  *  It  would  seem  that 
Clement  here  excludes  all  conception  even  of  an  animal 
soul  in  Christ ;  and  that  he  regarded  the  appearance  of 
the  Logos  on  earth  as  merely  the  manifestation  of  him 
to  the  senses  of  men  in  a  body,  answering  in  form  and 
substance  to  a  human  body,  but  not  subject  to  the  same 
necessities  and  accidents. 

The  language  of  Tertullian  is  vacillating  and  self-contra- 
dictory. His  conceptions  on  the  whole  subject  of  the 
Logos  were  unsteady  ;  and  no  form  of  words  had  as  yet 
been  settled  which  might  serve  as  a  guide  to  one  without 
ideas  of  his  own.  He  rejected  the  philosophical  distinc- 
tion of  his  day  between  the  intellect  (mens,  animus),  and 
the  animal  soul  (anima),  and  maintained,  in  conformity 
with  our  modern  belief,  the  proper  unity  of  the  soul 
(anima),  of  which  he  regarded  the  intellect  as  a  part. 
But  this  soul,  in  common  with  many  of  the  ancient  phi- 
losophers, he  conceived  of  as  corporeal.  He  regarded  it 
as  diffused  through  the  body,  possessing  its  shape,  and 
constituting  its  principle  of  life,  f  A  living  body  he  proba- 
bly considered  as  essentially  united  with  a  soul ;  and  in 
believing  the  Logos  to  have  assumed  a  living  body,  he 
represents  him  as  having  assumed  also  a  human  soul. 
The  soul  being,  in  his  view,  corporeal  as  well  as  the 
body,  the  conception  or  the  imagination  thus  became 
more  easy  to  be  apprehended.  But  that  in  assigning  a 
human  soul  to  Christ,  he  assigned  to  him  likewise  a  hu- 


*Stromat.  VI.  §.  9.  p.  775. 
t  See  his  Treatise,  De  Anima. 


70  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

man  intellect,  is  not,  I  think  to  be  proved.  This  part  of 
the  soul,  he  may  have  thought  was  supplied  by  the  Lo- 
gos ;  and  there  is  much  in  his  writings  which  favors  the 
supposition.  It  appears,  I  think,  to  have  been  his  prev- 
alent conception,  in  common  with  the  other  Fathers  of 
his  time,  that  ihe  Logos  alone  was  the  proper  agent  in 
Christ.  I  will  produce  only  two  passages,  to  which  there 
are  many,  more  or  less  analogous.  In  arguing  against 
the  Gnostics,  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  fleshly  body, 
he  compares  the  assumption  of  such  a  body  by  Christ  to 
the  appearances  of  angels  related  in  the  Old  Testament. 
"  You  have  read,  and  believed,"  he  says,  "  that  the 
angels  of  the  Creator  were  sometimes  changed  into  the 
likeness  of  men,  and  bore  about  so  true  a  body,  that 
Abraham  washed  their  feet,  and  Lot  was  drawn  away 
from  Sodom  by  their  hands  ;  an  angel  also  wrestled  with 
a  man,  the  whole  weight  of  whose  body  was  required  to 
throw  him  down  and  detain  him.  But  that  power  which 
you  concede  to  the  angels,  who  may  assume  a  human 
body  and  yet  remain  angels,  do  you  take  away  from  a 
Divine  Being  more  powerful  than  they  ?  (hoc  tu  potenti- 
ori  deo  aufers?)  As  if  Christ  could  not  continue  a  Di- 
vine Being  (deus)  after  having  put  on  humanity."  * 
He  often  speaks,  though,  T  think,  not  with  clear  or  con- 
sistent conceptions,  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Logos.  He 
represents  him  as  the  agent  in  all  those  operations  refer- 
red to  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  the  Gnostics 
regarded  as  unworthy  of  the  Supreme  Being.  They 
are  ignorant,  he  says,  that  though  not  suitable  to  the 
Father,  they  were  suitable  to  the  Son  ;  and  proceeds  to 

*De  Came  Christi,  cap.  3. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC   UNION.  71 

express  conceptions  very  different  from  those  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  were  entertained  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria. "  They  are  ignorant  that  those  things  were  suita- 
ble to  the  Son,  who  was  about  to  submit  to  the  accidents 
of  humanity,  thirst,  and  hunger,  and  tears,  to  be  born,  and 
even  to  die."  # 

Thus  far,  the  loose  general  notion  of  most  of  those  who 
speculated  on  the  subject  seems  to  have  been,  that  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos  was  analogous  to  the  appear- 
ance of  angels  in  human  shapes  ;  and  to  the  supposed 
incarnations  of  heathen  deities,  with  the  imagination 
of  which  a  great  majority  of  Christians  were  familiar, 
as  converts  from  Gentilism.  f  One  of  the  latest  writers 
on  the  history  of  Christian  doctrines,  Miinter,  late  Bish- 
op of  Zealand,  observes,  that  "  The  Catholic  Fathers, 
who  maintained  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics  the  reality 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  appear  in  part  to  have  placed  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  in  this  body  ;  and  their  common 
expressions  and  representations  show  clearly,  that  they 
had  very  imperfect  conceptions  concerning  this  nature, 
corresponding  to  those  entertained  by  the  heathen,  by 
the  learned  Jews,  and  by  all  parties  of  Christians,  con- 
cerning the  appearances  of  God  or  of  gods  in  the  ancient 
world."  —  "  The  well  known  error  of  Apollinaris,  that 
Jesus  had  only  an  animal  soul,  the  principle  of  life  ;  and 
that  the  Divine  Logos  performed  in  him  all  the  functions 

*  Advers.  Praxeam,  cap.  16. 

t  "  Alia  sunt  quae  Deus  ina?mulationem  elegerit  sapiential  secularis 
Et  tamen  apud  illam  facilius  creditur  Jupiter  taurus  factus  aut  cygnus, 
quam  vere  homo  Christus  penes  Marcionem."  Tertullian.  De  Came 
Christi,  cap.  4. 


72  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

of  an  intelligent  soul,  was  by  no  means  so  new  as  it  was 
represented  to  be  in  the  fourth  century."  Among  the 
Fathers,  according  to  Miinter,  Tertullian  was  perhaps  the 
first  who  affirmed  Jesus  to  have  a  proper  human  soul  ; 
although  he  adds  that  some  passages  may  be  adduced 
from  him  which  appear  to  favor  the  contrary  opinion.  * 
Similar  remarks  to  those  quoted  from  Miinter  are  made 
by  Neander  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  f 

Such,  we  may  conclude,  was  the  state  of  opinion 
respecting  the  Incarnation  from  the  time  of  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  to  that 
of  Origen  in  the  third  century.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
that  the  foundations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of 
Christ  were  laid  in  the  virtual  rejection  of  the  truth  of 
his  being,  properly  speaking,  a  man  ;  a  truth  at  the  pres- 
ent day  almost  undisputed.  This  fact  was  admitted 
only  in  words ;  the  sense  of  which  was  nearly  the  same, 
as  when  angels  assuming  a  human  shape  are  spoken  of 
as  men  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  may  be  observed, 
also,  that  in  this,  as  in  other  doctrines,  the  ancient  Fath- 
ers had  a  great  advantage  over  those  who  in  later  times 
have  been  denominated  Orthodox ;  as  their  doctrine  which 
represented  the  Logos  as  constituting  the  whole  of  the 
intelligent  nature  of  Christ,  or,  in  other  words,  made  the 
Logos  and  Christ  identical,  was  neither  absurd  in  its 
statement,  nor  abhorrent  to  our  natural  feelings.  But 
there  is  another  remark,  which,  though  not  immediately 
to  our  present  purpose,  is  still  more  important.  When 
we  find  that  in  the  second  century  Christ  was  no  longer 
considered  as  a  man,  properly  speaking,  but  as  the  incar- 

*  Dogmengeschichte,  B.  II,  H.  I.    269-274. 
t  Band  I.  10G3,  10G4.    II.  905. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  73 

nate  Logos  of  God,  we  perceive  how  imperfect  a  knowl- 
edge had  been  preserved  by  unwritten  tradition,  not 
merely  of  the  doctrines  of  our  religion,  but  of  the  impres- 
sion which  its  historical  facts  must  have  made  upon  the 
first  believers  ;  for  if  Christ  were  a  man  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  those  who  were  conversant  with  him 
while  on  earth,  undoubtedly  believed  him  to  be  so.  In 
the  passage  of  our  religion  from  the  Jews  to  whom  it  had 
been  taught,  to  the  Gentiles  through  whom  it  has  been 
transmitted  to  us,  the  current  of  tradition  wras  interrupted. 
Hence  followed,  even  in  the  second  century,  a  state  of 
opinion  respecting  the  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
which  renders  it  evident,  that  neither  Christianity  itself, 
nor  those  writings  from  which  wTe  derive  our  knowledge 

o  o 

of  it,  had  their  origin,  or  received  their  character,  in  that 
age.     The  Christianity  of  the  Gospels  is  not  that  of  the 
earliest  Christian   Fathers.     Though  they  had  departed 
but  little  from   the  spirit   of  our   religion,    or    from  its 
essential  doctrines ;  and  though  their  works   (I  speak  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries),  notwithstanding 
the  disrespect  and  unjust   prejudices  of  many  in  modern 
times,  are  monuments  of  noble  minds ;  yet  it  is   equally 
true,  that  we  find  in  their  writings  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity intimately  blended  with  opinions,  derived  either 
from  the  philosophy   of  the  age,  or  from  the   popular 
notions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  or  having  their  source  in 
the   peculiar   circumstances  in   which  they  themselves 
were  placed. 

We  come  now  to  Origen,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century,  and  with  him,  new  opinions  open  upon  us. 
Origen  fully  and  consistently  maintained  the  doctrine  of 

7 


74  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

a  human  soul  in  Jesus.  Imbued  with  the  principles  of 
Platonism,  he  believed  this  soul,  in  common  with  all 
other  souls,  to  have  preexisted,  and  in  its  preexistent 
state,  to  have,  through  its  entire  purity  and  moral  perfec- 
tion, become  thoroughly  filled  and  penetrated  by  the 
Logos,  of  whom  all  other  souls  partake  in  proportion  to 
their  love  toward  him.  It  thus  became  one  with  the 
Logos,  and  formed  the  bond  of  union  between  the  body 
of  Jesus  and  the  divinity  of  the  Logos  ;  in  consequence  o* 
which  both  the  soul  and  body  of  the  Saviour,  being 
wholly  mixed  with  and  united  to  the  Logos,  partook  of 
his  divinity  and  were  transformed  into  something  divine.  * 
But  from  the  illustrations  which  Origen  uses,  respecting 
the  connexion  between  the  Logos  and  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  it  is  clear  that  he  had  no  conception  of  that 
form  of  the  doctrine  which  prevailed  after  his  time. 
"We  do  not,"  he  says,  "suppose  the  visible  and  sensi- 
ble body  of  Jesus  to  have  been  God,  nor  yet  his  soul,  of 
which  he  declared,  My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death. 

*  Els  &iov  ptrxGiGnxivcci.  Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  III.  §  41.  p.  474.  The 
words  should  not  be  rendered,  as  they  are  by  Munscher,  "  transformed 
into  God,"  (in  Gott  iibergegangen).  Origen,  here,  as  often  else- 
where, uses  Seoj  (God),  not  in  our  modern  sense,  as  a  proper  name, 
but  as  a  common  name.  This  use  of  the  term,  which  was  common  to 
him  with  his  contemporaries,  and  continued  to  be  common  after  his 
time,  is  illustrated  by  his  remarks  upon  the  passage  "  and  the  Logos 
was  God,"  (  Opp.  IV.  p.  48.  seqq.) ;  in  which  he  contends,  that  the 
Logos  was  'god'  in  an  inferior  sense; — not,  as  we  should  sa}T, 
God,  but  a  god,  or  rather,  not  the  Divine  Being,  but  a  divine  being  ; 
and  in  which  he  maintains  that  u  beside  the  True  God,  many  beings, 
by  participation  of  God,  become  divine,"  literally  "  become  gods." 

The  full  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  term  god  as  a  common  name 
would,  I  think,  throw  much  light  upon  the  opinions  both  of  the  an- 
cient Heathens  and  Christians.  But  this  is  not  the  place  to  enter 
upon  it. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC   UNION.  75 

But  as  he,  who  says,  I  the  Lord  am  the  God  of  all  flesh; 
and,  There  ivas  no  other  God  before  me  and  there  shall 
be  none  after  me,  is  believed  by  the  Jews  to  have  been 
God  using  the  soul  and  body  of  the  prophet  as  an  organ ; 
and,  as  among  the  Gentiles,  he  who  said, 

I  know  the  number  of  the  sands  and  the  measure  of  the  deep, 
And  I  understand  the  mute,  and  hear  him  who  speaks  not, 

is  understood  to  be  a  god,  addressing  men  by  the  voice 
of  the  Pythoness  ;  —  so  we  believe  that  the  divine  Logos, 
the  son  of  the  God  of  all,  spoke  in  Jesus  when  he  said,  I 
am  the  way  and  the  truth  and  the  life  ;  I  am  the  living 
bread  descending  from  heaven ;  and  when  he  uttered 
other  similar  declarations."  A  little  after,  Origen  com- 
pares that  union  of  the  soul  and  body  of  Jesus  with  the 
Logos,  by  which  they  are  made  one,  to  the  union  of 
all  Christians  with  their  Lord  as  described  by  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  vi.  17.),  "  He  who  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one 
spirit  with  him,"  though  he  represents  it  as  a  union  of  a 
far  higher  character,  and  more  divine .  * 

In  this  unsettled  state  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
continued  till  the  fourth  century.  It  is  remarked  by 
Miinscher,  when  he  comes  to  treat  of  the  controversies 
which  then  arose,  that  "  Most  of  the  earlier  Fathers  spoke 
simply  of  a  human  body,  which  the  Logos  or  Son  of 
God  had  assumed.  Origen,  on  the  contrary,  ascribed  to 
Christ  an  intelligent  human  soul,  and  considered  this  as 
the  bond  of  union  between  his  divine  nature  and  his  hu- 
man body.  Some  Fathers  had  also  spoken  occasionally 
of  a  union  or  commingling  of  man  with  God;  but  their 

*  Origen,  Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  II.  §  9.     Opp.  I.  393,  394. 


76  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

propositions  concerning  it  were  indefinite  and  incidental, 
and  had  obtained  no  authority  in  the  Church  ;  and  the 
opinion  of  Origen  was  far  from  being  an  hypothesis  gen- 
erally received."  *  I  quote  this  as  the  statement  of  a 
respectable  writer ;  without  assenting  to  all  the  expres- 
sions, as  may  appear  from  what  precedes. 

In  the  fourth  century,  the  doctrine  of  Athanasius  con- 
cerning the  Trinity  being  established   by  the  Council  of 
Nice  ;  and  its  partisans,    in   opposition  to    the  Arians, 
zealously  using   the  strongest   language   concerning   the 
divinity  of  the   Son   as    consubstantial  with  that  of  the 
Father,  the   Orthodox   faith  was    now  verging  to   such 
a  profession   of    their  equality,   that  to    represent    the 
Logos  as  suffering  in  his  divine   nature  began   to  appear 
an  error,  like  that  of  representing  the  Father  as  suffering. 
On  the  other  hand,  the   Arians,  viewing  the  Logos  as  a 
created  being,  found  no  difficulty  in  retaining  the  ancient 
doctrine  concerning   his   simple   incarnation  in  a  human 
body,  and  his  having  suffered  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
words.     Among  their  opponents,   likewise,  Apollinaris, 
who  had  been  the  friend  of  Athanasius,  and  distinguished 
for  his  zeal  in  asserting  the   Orthodox  faith  concerning 
the  Trinity,  undertook  with  a  less  fortunate  result  to  de- 
fine  the  doctrine   of  the   Incarnation.       He,    with    the 
Arians  and  the  ancient  Fathers,  maintained  that  the  Lo- 
gos supplied  in  Christ  the  place   of  the  human  intellect. 
He  also  freely  used  the  language,  which  has  since  be- 
come common,  concerning  the  sufferings  of  the  Divinity 
in  Christ ;  and  his  opponents,  in  consequence,  represent- 
ed him  as  believing   the   Divine  nature   to  be  passible. 

*Dogmengeschichte.     Band  IV.  §  77. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  77 

But  it  seems  most  probable  that  he,  like  others,  used 
this  language  without  meaning.  His  doctrine  was  con- 
demned by  the  second  general  council,  that  of  Constan- 
tinople (A.  D.  381.),  in  which  it  was  decreed,  that 
Christ  was  not  only  "  the  perfect  Logos  of  God,"  but 
also  "a  perfect  man  possessed  of  a  rational  soul"  ;  and 
the  latter  doctrine  was  thus  at  last  established  as  Or- 
thodox. 

The  Deity  being  impassible,  it  would  seem,  indeed,  if 
Christ  really  suffered,  that  it  was  necessary  to  regard  him 
as  a  perfect  man,  capable  of  suffering.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  those  of  a  man  only, 
it  might  seem  to  follow  that  Christ  was  only  a  man,  and 
the  whole  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  would  disappear. 

In  this  state  of  things  recourse  was  had  to  a  doctrine, 
which    has    been    denominated    the   Communication    of 
Properties. #     It  was    maintained,   that  the  divine  and 
human  natures    in    Christ  being  united  in  one   person, 
what   was    true   of  either   nature   might   be  asserted   of 
Christ.     Christ   then  being   God,  it  might  be   affirmed 
with  truth  that  God  was  born,  hungered,   thirsted,  was 
crucified,  and  died.    It  was  maintained,  at  the  same  time, 
that  the  Divine  Nature  was  impassible   and  unchangea- 
ble.    The  last  proposition  annihilated  all  meaning  in  the 
former,  not  leaving  it  even  the  poor  merit  of  being  the 
most  offensive  mode  of  expressing  some   conception  that 
might  be   apprehended  as  possible.     What  sense  those 
who  have  asserted  the  sufferings  of  God  have  fancied  that 
the  words  might  have,  is  a  question  which,  after  all  that 

*  'A.vridofif-  —  Koivuvia  Ithiuf^airui, 

7* 


78  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

has  been  written  upon  the  subject,  is  left  very  much  to 
conjecture.  I  imagine  that  it  is,  at  the  present  day,  the 
gross  conception  of  some  who  think  themselves  Ortho- 
dox on  this  point,  that  the  divine  and  human  natures 
being  united  in  Christ  as  the  Mediator,  a  compound 
nature,  different  from  either  and  capable  of  suffering, 
was  thus  formed. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Communication  of  Properties, 
says  Le  Clerc  "  is  as  intelligible  as  if  one  were  to  say, 
that  there  is  a  circle  which  is  so  united  with  a  triangle, 
that  the  circle  has  the  properties  of  the  triangle,  and 
the  triangle  those  of  the  circle."  *  It  is  discussed  at 
length  by  Petavius  with  his  usual  redundance  of  learn- 
ing. The  vast  folio  of  that  writer  containing  the  history 
of  the  Incarnation,  is  one  of  the  most  striking  and  most 
melancholy  monuments  of  human  folly  which  the  world 
has  to  exhibit.  In  the  history  of  other  departments  of 
science  we  find  abundant  errors  and  extravagances ; 
but  Orthodox  theology  seems  to  have  been  the  peculiar 
region  of  words  without  meaning ;  of  doctrines  con- 
fessedly false  in  their  proper  sense,  and  explained  in  no 
other;  of  the  most  portentous  absurdities  put  forward 
as  truths  of  the  highest  import ;  and  of  contradictory 
propositions  thrown  together  without  an  attempt  to  rec- 
oncile them.  A  main  error  running  through  the  whole 
system,  as  well  as  other  systems  of  false  philosophy, 
is,  that  words  possess  an  intrinsic  meaning,  not  de- 
rived from  the  usage  of  men ;  that  they  are  not  mere 
signs  of  human  ideas,  but  a  sort  of  real  entities,  capable 
of   signifying    what  transcends    our    conceptions,    and 


*  Ars  Critica.  P.  II.  S.  I.  c.  ix.§  11. 


OF    THE    HYPOSTATIC    UNION.  79 

that  when  they  express  to  human  reason  only  an  absurd- 
ity, they  may  still  be  significant  of  a  high  mystery  or 
a  hidden  truth,  and  are  to  be  believed  without  being 
understood. 

In  the  fifth   century,  the    doctrine  of  the   Hypostatic 
Union  was   still  further  defined.     Before  this  time,  says 
Mosheim,  "  it  had  been  settled  by  the  decrees  of  former 
councils  [those  of  Nice  and  Constantinople]   that  Christ 
was  truly   God  and   truly  man  ;  but   there  had   as  yet 
been  no  controversy  and  no  decision  of  any  council  con- 
cerning the  mode  and   effect  of  the  union  of  the  two   na- 
tures in  Christ.    In  consequence,  there  was  a  want  of 
agreement  among  Christian  teachers  in    their  language 
concerning  this  mystery."  #    The  controversy  which  now 
arose  had  its  origin  in  the  denial  of  Nestorius,  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  that  Mary  could  in   strictness  of  speech 
be  called  l  the   Mother  of  God,'  a  title  which  had  been 
applied  to  her  by  Athanasius  himself.     Though  we  are 
accustomed   to  expressions  more  shocking,  yet  this   title 
may  perhaps  sound  harshly  in  the  ears    of  most  Protes- 
tants.    Mosheim,    however,   who  is    solicitous    to    pass 
some    censure  upon  Nestorius,  finds   but  two  faults  or 
errors    to  impute  to    him,    the    first  of   which  is,  that 
"  he,  rashly   and  to  the  offence  of  many,  wished  to  set 
aside  an  innocent  title  which  had  been  long  in  common 
use."  f  The  other  is,  that  he  presumptuously  employed 
unsuitable  expressions  and  comparisons  in  speaking  of  a 
mystery  transcending  all  comprehension.  Cyril   was  at 

*  Hist.   Eccles.   Saec.  V.  Pars  II.  cap.  v.   §  5, 

t  "  —  vocabulum  dudum  tritum  et  innocens."  lb.  §  9. 


80  HISTORY    OF    THE    DOCTRINE 

this  time  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  the  rival  of  Nestori- 
us, —  a  turbulent,  ambitious,  unprincipled  man.  He  took 
advantage  of  the  opinions  of  Nestorius  to  charge  him 
with  heresy,  and  procured  the  calling  of  the  third  general 
council,  that  of  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431.  In  this  council 
Cyril  presided,  and  the  heresy  of  Nestorius  was  anathe- 
matized, and  Nestorius  himself  deposed,  and  denounced 
as  a  "  second  Judas."  On  a  subject,  concerning  which 
the  parties  understood  neither  each  other  nor  themselves, 
it  has  been  found  by  modern  inquirers  hard  to  deter- 
mine, in  what  particulars  the  heresy  of  the  "new 
Judas  "  differed  from  the  Orthodoxy  of  Cyril,  except 
in  the  denial,  that  Mary  could  in  strictness  of  speech 
be  called  '  the  Mother  of  God.'  In  general,  Nestorius 
was  charged  with  making  so  wide  a  distinction  between 
the  human  and  divine  natures  in  Christ,  as  to  separate 
Christ  into  two  persons.  There  is  however  no  ground 
for  supposing,  that  Nestorius  maintained  so  heretical 
and  so  rational  an  opinion,  as  that  Cod  was  one  person, 
and  the  inspired  messenger  of  God,  another.  What- 
ever was  meant  by  the  accusation  of  his  dividing  Christ 
into  two  persons,  he  himself  earnestly  denied  its  truth  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  appears  that  Cyril,  in  his  eager- 
ness to  widen  the  distance  between  himself  and  his  rival, 
either  fell  into  the  snare  of  the  Apollinarian  heresy,  or  at 
least  grazed  its  limits.  Cyril  prevailed  in  his  factious 
contest,  through  his  influence  with  the  officers  of  the  Im- 
perial Household,  and  the  bribes  which  he  lavished  upon 
them  ;  for  what  was  Orthodoxy  was  to  be  determined  in 
the  last  resort  by  the  emperor  Theodosius,  or  rather  by  the 
women  and  eunuchs  of  his  court.  "  Thanks  to  the  purse 
of  St.  Cyril,"  says  Le    Clerc,    "the   Romish    church 


OF  THE  HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  81 

which  regards  councils  as  infallible,  is  not,  at  the  present 
day,  Nestorian."  *  The  creeds  of  Protestants  are 
equally  indebted  to  St.  Cyril  for  their  purity. 

But  notwithstanding   the   decision  of  the   Council  of 
Ephesus,  the  contest  still  raged.     The  monophysite  doc- 
trine, as  it  was  called,  that  is  the  doctrine  of  but  a  single 
nature  in  Christ,  the  heresy  of  Apollinaris,  on  the  very 
borders  of  which  lay  the  Orthodoxy  of  Cyril,  was  main- 
tained by  Eutyches,  who  had  been  a  friend  of  Cyril  and 
a  bitter  opponent   of  the   Nestorians.       Eutyches  was 
condemned  and  deposed  by  Flavian,  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople.    But  though  Cyril  was  dead,  his  party  still 
predominated.     A   council  was  called    at  Ephesus,  the 
proceedings  of  which   were  determined  by  the  will  and 
the  violence   of  Dioscurus,  who  had  succeeded  him  as 
patriarch  of  Alexandria.    The  opinions  of  Eutyches  were 
sanctioned  by  it;  and  Flavian,  who  was  present,  suffered 
such  personal  outrages  from  his  theological  opponents, 
that  he  only  escaped  to  die  on  the  third  day  following. 
This  council,    however,  the  church  of  Rome  does  not 
regard  as  oecumenical  and  entitled  to  authority.     Leo, 
then    pope,   joined    the    party  opposed   to    Dioscurus, 
which  through  his  aid  finally  prevailed ;  and  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ephesus  received  a  name,  of  which  we  may  best 
perhaps  express  the  force  in  English  by  calling  it  a  Coun- 
cil of  Banditti,  f 

So  far,  however,  as  its  authority  was  acknowledged, 
the  Church  had  been  plunged  by  it  into  the  monophy- 
site  heresy.     But  a  new  council  was  called,  which  is 

*  Biblioth.  Univers.  Suite  du  Tome  XXI.  p.  27. 


82  HISTORY  OE  THE  DOCTRINE 

reckoned  as  the  fourth  general  council,  that  of  Chalcedon, 
A.  D.  451.  The  majority  of  this  council  was  com- 
posed of  monophysites ;  but  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope 
favored  the  opposite  party.  Their  authority  prevailed  ; 
and  the  result  may  be   given  in  the  words  of  Gibbon. 

"  The  Legates  threatened,  the  Emperor  was  absolute 

In  the  name  of  the  fourth  general  council,  the  Christ  in 
one  person,  but  in  two  natures,  was  announced  to  the 
Catholic  world  :  an  invisible  line  was  drawn  between  the 
heresy  of  Apollinaris  and  the  faith  of  St.  Cyril,  and 
the  road  to  paradise,  a  bridge  as  sharp  as  a  razor,  was 
suspended  over  the  abyss  by  the  master  hand  of  the 
theological  artist."  "  This  council,"  says  Mosheim, 
"  decided  that  all  Christians  should  believe,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  one  person  in  two  distinct  natures  without  any 
confusion  or  mixture,  which  has  continued  to  be  the 
common  faith."  *  It  has  continued  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  creeds  ;  what  is  now  the  faith  of  those  who  consider 
themselves  as  believers  in  the  Incarnation,  is  prob- 
ably a  question  which  the  greater  number  have  never 
thought  of  answering. 

Of  the  language,  however,  that  has  been  used  in  mod- 
ern times  concerning  this  doctrine,  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  produce  one  or  two  specimens. 

Lord  Bacon  gives  us  this  account  of  the  belief  of  a 
Christian,  f 

"  He  believes  a  Virgin  to  be  a  Mother  of  a  Son  ;  and 
that  very  Son  of  hers  to  be  her  Maker.  He  believes 
him  to  have  been  shut  up  in  a  narrow  room,  whom  heav- 

*  Hist.  Eccles.  Saec.  V.  P.  II.  cap.  v.  §  15. 
t  In  his  Character  of  a  Believing  Christian. 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  83 

en  and   earth  could    not  contain.     He  believes  him  to 

have  been  born  in  time,  who  was  and  is  from  everlasting. 

o 

He  believes  him  to  have  been  a  weak  child  carried  in 
arms,  who  is  the  Almighty  ;  and  him  once  to  have  died, 
who  only  hath  life  and  immortality  in  himself." 

The  following  passage  is  from  a  sermon  by  Dr.  South.  * 
"  But  now  was  there  ever  any  wonder  comparable  to 
this !  to  behold  Divinity  thus  clothed  in  flesh  !  the  Crea- 
tor of  all  things  humbled  not  only  to  the  company,  but 
also  to  the  cognation  of  his  creatures  !  It  is  as  if  we 
should  imagine  the  whole  world  not  only  represented 
upon ,  but  also  contained  in  one  of  our  little  artificial 
globes;  or  the  body  of  the  sun  envelop'd  in  a  cloud  as 
big  as  a  man's  hand;  all  which  would  be  look'd  upon  as 
astonishing  impossibilities  ;  and  yet  as  short  of  the  other, 
as  the  greatest  Finite  is  of  an  Infinite,  between  which 
the  disparity  is  immeasurable.  For  that  God  should  thus 
in  a  manner  transform  Himself,  and  subdue  and  master 
all  his  glories  to  a  possibility  of  human  apprehension  and 
converse,  the  best  reason  would  have  thought  it  such  a 
thing  as  God  could  not  do,  had  it  not  seen  it  actually 
done.  It  is  (as  it  were)  to  cancel  the  essential  distances 
of  things,  to  remove  the  bounds  of  nature,  to  bring 
heaven  and  earth,  and  (which  is  more)  both  ends  of  the 
contradiction  together." 

To  one  wholly  ignorant  of  theological  controversy, 
these  passages  might  have  the  air  of  malicious  irony. 
But  a  little  further  acquaintance  with  creeds  and  theolo- 
gical systems  would  satisfy  him  that  such  language  may 
be  used  in  earnest. 

*  Souths  Sermons.  6th  ed.  1727.  Vol.  III.  p.  299.  Sermon  on 
Christmas  Day,  16G5. 


84  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

It  is  with  some  hesitation  that  I  adduce  another  pas- 
sage from  the  same  semion  of  South,  which  occurs  a 
few  pages  after  what  has  been  quoted.  When  thus 
treating,  as  it  were,  of  the  morbid  anatomy  of  the  human 
mind,  it  is  often  a  question,  how  far  one  ought  to  proceed 
in  exhibiting  to  common  view  the  more  disgusting  cases 
of  disease.  The  reverence  due  to  the  subjects  which 
are  profaned,  and  an  unwillingness  to  shock  the  feelings 
of  his  readers,  should  restrain  a  writer  from  any  unneces- 
sary display.  But  it  is  not  a  little  important  that  the 
character  of  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  and  the 
monstrous  extravagances  to  which  it  leads,  should  be 
well  understood.  In  reading,  then,  the  following  words, 
it  is  to  be  recollected  that  the  author  was  a  man  distin- 
guished as  a  fine  writer,  whose  uncommon  natural  talents 
had  been  cultivated  by  learning.  From  the  works  of 
grosser  minds,  it  would  be  easy  to  produce  many  passa- 
ges more  intolerable. 

"  Men,"  says  South,  "  cannot  persuade  themselves 
that  a  Deity  and  Infinity  should  lye  within  so  narrow  a 
compass  as  the  contemptible  dimensions  of  an  human 
body  :  That  Omnipotence,  Omniscience,  and  Omnipre- 
sence should  be  ever  wrapt  in  swaddling-clothes,  and 
abased  to  the  homely  usages  of  a  stable  and  a  manger : 
That  the  glorious  Artificer  of  the  whole  universe,  who 
spread  out  the  heavens  like  a  curtain,  and  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth  could  ever  turn  carpenter,  and  exercise 
an  inglorious  trade  in  a  little  cell.  They  cannot  imagine, 
that  He  who  commands  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills, 
and  takes  up  the  ocean  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  could 
be  subject  to  the  meannesses  of  hunger  and  thirst,  and 
be  afflicted  in  all  his  appetites.    That  he  who  once  crea- 


OF  THE  HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  85 

ted,  and  at  present  governs,  and  shall  hereafter  judge  the 

world,  shall  be  abused  in  all  his  concerns  and  relations 
be  scourged,  spit  upon,  mocked,  and  at  last  crucified. 
All  which  are  passages  which  lie  extremely  cross  to  the 
notions  and  conceptions  that  reason  has  framed  to  itself, 
of  that  high  and  impossible  perfection  that  resides  in  the 
divine  nature." 

There  is  a  short  poem  written  by  Watts  after  the 
death  of  Locke,  *  in  which,  on  account  of  "  the  waver- 
ing and  the  cold  assent,"  which  that  great  man  was  sup- 
posed by  him  to  have  given  to  "  themes  divinely  true," 
he  invokes  the  aid  of  Charity  that  he  may  see  him  in 
heaven.  What  were  these  "  themes  divinely  true," 
appears  in  the  following  verses : 

"  Reason  could  scarce  sustain  to  see 
The  Almighty  One,  the  Eternal  Three, 
Or  bear  the  infant  Deity  ; 
Scarce  could  her  pride  descend  to  own 
Her  Maker  stooping  from  his  throne, 
And  dressed  in  glories  so  unknown. 
A  ransomed  world,  a  bleeding-  God, 
And  Heaven  appeased  by  flowing  blood, 
Were  themes  too  painful  to  be  understood." 

The  Eternal  Three  !  The  Deity  an  infant !  God 
bleeding  !  The  Maker  of  the  Universe  appeasing 
Heaven  by  his  flowing  blood  !  These  are  not  doctrines 
to  be  trifled  with.  Consider  what  meaning  can  be  put 
upon  these  words ;  take  the  least  offensive  sense  they 
can  be  used  to  express  ;  and  then  let  any  one  ask  him- 
self this  question ;  If  these  doctrines  are  not  doctrines 
of  Christianity,   what   are  they  ?    It  is    a  question  that 

*  On  Mr.  Locke's  Annotations,  left  behind  him  at  his  death. 

8 


86  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

deserves  serious  consideration.  There  is  but  an  alterna- 
tive. If  they  are  not  doctrines  of  Christianity,  then  they 
are  among  the  most  insane  fictions  of  human  folly :  the 
monstrous  legends  of  Hindoo  superstition  present  nothing 
more  revolting,  or  more  in  contrast  with  the  truths  of 
our  religion. 

But,  in  fact,  some  of  the  most  portentous  of  these 
expressions  are  used  utterly  without  meaning.  They  can 
express  nothing  which  an  intelligent  man  will  admit  that 
he  intends  to  express.  Attempt  to  give  a  sense  to  the 
propositions,  God  was  an  infant ;  God  poured  out  his 
blood  ;  God  died.  Even  he,  whom  familiarity  has  ren- 
dered insensible  to  language  really  equivalent,  may 
shudder  at  so  naked  a  statement  of  what  he  professes  to 
believe.  Let  him  attempt  to  give  a  sense  to  these  words, 
and  just  in  proportion  as  he  approaches  toward  the 
shadow  of  a  meaning,  will  he  approach  toward  a  concep- 
tion, from  which,  if  he  have  the  common  sentiments  of  a 
man  and  a  Christian,  he  will  shrink  back  with  abhorrence. 
Since  Christianity  then  has  been  represented  as  teach- 
ing such  doctrines,  and  even  as  suspending  the  salvation 
of  men  upon  their  belief,  is  it  wonderful  that  it  has  had, 
and  that  it  has,  so  little  power  over  men's  minds  and 
hearts  ?  .  Could  means  more  effectual  have  been  devised 
for  destroying  its  credit  and  counteracting  its  efficacy  ? 
If  true  religion  be  the  great  support  of  the  moral 
virtues,  and  essential  to  the  happiness  of  individuals  and 
the  well-being  of  society,  is  it  strange  that  there  has 
been  so  little  virtue,  happiness,  or  peace  in  the  world  ? 
And  what  then  are  our  duties  as  Christians,  and  as  friends 
of  human  kind  ?  What  is  the  duty  of  all  enlightened 
men  ;   of  all   qualified  to  inquire  into  the  character  and 


OF  THE   HYPOSTATIC  UNION.  87 

history  of  these  doctrines  ;  of  all  who  profess  or  counte- 
nance them  with  an  uncertain  faith  ?  Of  such  as  are 
fitted  to  think  and  act  upon  subjects  of  this  nature,  there 
is  but  one  class  to  whom  a  solemn  appeal  may  not  be 
made.  It  consists  of  those  who,  after  a  thorough  exami- 
nation, have  felt  themselves  compelled  to  receive  these 
doctrines  —  if  the  thing  be  possible  —  as  doctrines  taught 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 


SECTION  VI. 

DIFFICULTIES  THAT  MAY  REMAIN  IN  SOME  MINDS  RESPECT* 
ING  THE  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ALLEGED  BY  TRINITA- 
RIANS. 

As  I  have  endeavoured  to  express  myself  as  concisely 
as  possible,  I  shall  not  recapitulate  what  I  have  written. 
If  any  one  should  think  the  arguments  that  have 
been  urged,  deserve  consideration  ;  but  yet  not  be  fully 
satisfied  of  their  correctness,  it  will  be  but  the  labor  of 
an  hour  or  two  to  read  them  over  a°:ain.     The  time  will 

o 

be  well  spent,  should  it  contribute  toward  freeing  his 
faith  from  an  essential  error,  and  giving  him  clearer, 
more  correct,  and,  consequently,  more  ennobling  and 
operative  conceptions  of  Christianity. 

Here,  then,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  before,  I 
might  close  the  discussion.  But  even  if  the  truth  for 
which  I  am  contending  be  fully  established,  still  difficul- 
ties may  remain  in  some  minds  which  it  is  desirable  to 
remove.  Like  a  great  part  of  Scripture,  the  passages 
adduced  in  support  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrines  have 
been  interpreted  upon  no  general  principles,  or  upon 
none  which  can  be  defended.  But  many  persons  have 
been  taught  from  their  childhood  to  associate  a  false 
meaning  with  words  and  texts  of  the  Bible.  This  mean- 
ing, borrowed  from  the  schools  of  technical  theology, 
is  that  which  immediately  presents  itself  to  their  minds, 


PREJUDICES    TO  BE  REMOVED.  89 

when  those  words  and  texts  occur.  They  can  hardly 
avoid  considering  the  expositions  so  familiar  to  them,  as 
those  alone  that  would  be  obvious  to  an  unprejudiced 
reader.  He  who  would  break  the  associations  which 
they  have  between  certain  words  and  a  certain  meaning, 
and  substitute  the  time  sense  for  that  to  which  they  are 
accustomed,  appears  to  them  to  be  doing  violence  to 
the  language  of  Scripture. 

Now  these  prejudices,  so  far  as  they  are  capable  of 
being  removed,  can  be  removed  only  by  establishing 
correct  principles  of  interpretation,  applying  them  to 
the  subject  in  hand,  and  pointing  out  the  true  or  the 
probable  meaning  of  the  more  important  passages  that 
have  been  misunderstood.  This,  therefore,  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  do  in  the  sections  that  follow. 


8* 


i*J^P"^l"""""™»»*« 


SECTION  VII. 

ON  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE    INTERPRETATION  OF  LANGUAGE. 

Supposing  the  doctrines  maintained  by  Trinitarians  to 
be  capable  of  proof,  the  state  of  the  case  between  them 
and  their  opponents  would  be  this.  They  quote  certain 
texts,  and  explain  them  in  a  sense  which,  as  they  be- 
lieve, supports  their  opinions.  We  maintain  that  the 
words  were  intended  to  express  a  very  different  mean- 
ing. How  is  the  question  to  be  decided  ?  We  do  not 
deny  that  there  are  certain  expressions  in  these  texts, 
which,  nakedly  considered,  will  bear  a  Trinitarian 
sense  ;  how  is  it  then  to  be  ascertained,  whether  this 
sense  or  some  other  was  intended  by  the  writer  ? 

In  order  to  answer  this  question,  it  is  necessary  to 
enter  into  some  explanation,  concerning  the  nature  of 
language,  and  the  principles  of  its  interpretation.  The 
art  of  interpretation  derives  its  origin  from  the  intrinsic 
ambiguity  of  language.  What  I  mean  to  express  by 
this  term,  is  the  fact,  that  a  very  large  portion  of  senten- 
ces, considered  in  themselves,  that  is,  if  regard  be  had 
merely  to  the  words  of  which  they  are  composed,  are 
capable  of  expressing  not  one  meaning  only,  but  two 
or  more  different  meanings  ;  or  (to  state  this  fact  in 
other  terms)  that  in  very  many  cases,  the  same  sen- 
tence, like  the  same  single  word,  may  be  used  to 
express  various  and  often   very  different    senses.      Now 


PRINCIPLES   OF  INTERPRETATION.  91 

in  a  great  part  of  what  we  find  written  concerning  the 
interpretation  of  language,  and  in  a  large  portion  of  the 
specimens  of  criticism  which  we  meet  with,  especially 
upon  the  Scriptures,  this  fundamental  truth,  this  fact 
which  lies  at  the  very  bottom  of  the  art  of  interpretation, 
has  either  been  overlooked,  or  not  regarded  in  its  rela- 
tions and  consequences.  It  may  be  illustrated  by  a 
single  example.  St.  John  thus  addresses  the  Christians 
to  whom  he  was  writing,  in  his  first  Epistle,  ii.  20. 

"  Ye  have  an  anointing  from  the  Holy  One,  and 
knoiv  all  things." 

If  we  consider  these  words  in  themselves  merely,  we 
shall  perceive  how  uncertain  is  their  signification,  and 
how  many  different  meanings,  they  may  be  used  to 
express.  The  first  clause,  l  Ye  have  an  anointing  from 
the  Holy  One,'  may  signify, 

1.  Through  the  favor  of  God,  ye  have  become 
Christians  or  believers  in  Christ;  anointing  being  a 
ceremony  of  consecration,  and  Christians  being  consid- 
ered as  consecrated  and  set  apart  from  the  rest  of  man- 
kind. 

2.  Or  it  may  mean,  Ye  have  been  truly  sanctified  in 
hcari  and  life  :  a  figure  borrowed  from  outward  conse- 
cration  being  used  to  denote  inward  holiness. 

3.  Or,  Ye  have  been  endued  with  miraculous  pow- 
ers :  consecrated  as  prophets  and  teachers  in  the  Chris- 
tian community. 

4.  Or,  Ye  have  been  well  instructed  in  the  truths  of 
Christianity.* 

I  forbear  to  mention    other    meanings,     which    the 

*  See  Wetstein's  notes  on  this  passage,  and  on  1  Tim.  iv.  7. 


tf^mfim^^^^^^^^m^^mm  i  ■»—  - 


92  PRINCIPLES  OP  INTERPRETATION. 

word  anointing  might  be  used  to   express.     These  are 
sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

The  term  Holy  One,  in  such  a  relation  as  it  holds  to 
the  other  words  in  the  present  sentence,  may  denote 
either   God,  or  Christ,  or  some  other  being. 

Ye  know  all  things,  literally  expresses  the  meaning, 
Ye  have  the  attribute  of  omniscience.  Beside  this  mean- 
ing it  may  signify,  Ye  are  fully  acquainted  with  all  the 
objects  of  human  knowledge ;  or,  Ye  know  every  truth 
connected  with  Christianity ;  or,  Ye  have  all  the 
knowledge  necessary  to  form  your  faith,  and  direct 
your  conduct ;  or  the  proposition  may  require  some 
other  limitation  ;  for  all  things  is  one  of  those  terms,  the 
meaning  of  which  is  continually  to  be  restrained  and 
modified  by  a  regard  to  the  subject  present  to  the  mind 
of  the  writer. 

This  statement  may  afford  some  imperfect  notion  of 
the  various  senses  which  the  words  before  us  may  be 
used  to  express ;  and  of  the  uncertainty  that  must  exist 
about  their  meaning,  when  they  are  regarded  without 
reference  to  those  considerations  by  which  it  ought  to  be 
determined.  I  say,  imperfect,  because  we  have  really 
kept  one  very  important  consideration  in  mind,  that  they 
were  written  by  an  Apostle  to  a  Christian  community. 
Putting  this  out  of  view,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  fix  the 
limit  of  their  possible  meanings.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  this  passage  has  been  adduced  merely  by  way  of 
illustration ;  and  that,  if  it  were  necessary,  an  indefinite 
number  of  similar  examples  might  be  quoted. 

I  will  mention,  and  I  can  barely  mention,  some  of 
the  principal  causes  of  the  intrinsic  ambiguity  of  lan- 
guage.    1.  Almost  every  word  is  used  in   a  variety  of 


PRINCIPLES   OF  INTERPRETATION.  03 

senses  ;  and  some  words  in  a  great  variety.  Now  as  we 
assign  one  or  another  of  these  senses  to  different  words  in 
a  sentence,  we  change  the  meaning  of  the  whole  sentence. 
If  they  are  important  words,  and  the  different  senses 
which  we  assign  vary  much  from  each  other,  we  change 
its  meaning  essentially.  2.  But  beside  their  common 
significations,  words  may  be  used  in  an  undefined  num- 
ber of  figurative  senses.  A  large  proportion  of  senten- 
ces may,  therefore,  be  understood  either  figuratively  or 
literally.  Considered  in  themselves,  they  present  no 
intrinsic  character  that  may  enable  us  to  determine 
whether  they  are  literal  or  figurative.  They  may  often 
be  understood  in  more  than  one  literal,  and  in  more  than 
one  figurative  sense ;  and  a  choice  is  then  to  be  made 
among  all  these  different  senses.  3.  A  very  large  pro- 
portion of  sentences  which  are  not  what  rhetoricians  call 
figurative,  are  yet  not  to  be  understood  strictly,  not  to  the 
letter,  but  with  some  limitation,  and  often  with  a  limitation 
which  contracts  exceedingly  their  literal  meaning.  "  I 
do  not,"  says  Mr.  Burke,  addressing  the  friend  to  whom 
he  is  writing,  in  his  Reflections  on  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, "  I  do  not  conceive  you  to  be  of  that  sophistical, 
captious  spirit,  or  of  that  uncandid  dullness,  as  to  require 
for  every  general  observation  or  sentiment,  an  explicit 
detail  of  the  correctives  and  exceptions,  which  reason  will 
presume  to  be  included  in  all  the  general  propositions 
which  come  from  a  reasonable  man."  Sentences  that 
are  general  or  universal  in  their  terms,  are  often  to  be 
regarded  merely  in  relation  to  the  subject  treated  of,  or 
the  persons  addressed ;  and  their  meaning  is  often  to  be 
greatly  limited  by  a  regard  to  one  or  another  of  these  con- 
siderations.     4.  In    eloquence,   in    poetry,    in  popular 


94  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

writing  of  every  sort,  and  not  least  in  the  Scriptures,  a 
great  part  of  the  language  used  is  the  language  of 
emotion  or  feeling.  The  strict  and  literal  meaning  of 
this  language  is,  of  course,  a  meaning  which  the  words 
may  be  used  to  express;  but  this  is  rarely  the  true 
meaning.  The  language  of  feeling  is  very  different  from 
that  of  philosophical  accuracy.  The  mind  when  strong- 
ly excited,  delights  in  general,  unlimited  propositions,  in 
hyperboles,  in  bold  figures  of  every  sort,  in  forcible  pre- 
sentations of  thought  addressed  indirectly  to  the  under- 
standing through  the  medium  of  the  imagination,  and  in 
the  utterance  of  those  temporary  false  judgements  which 
are  the  natural  result,  and  consequently  among  the  most 
natural  expressions,  of  strong  emotion.  Different  senses 
in  which  such  language  may  be  understood  often  present 
themselves ;  and  it  is  sometimes  not  easy  to  determine 
which  to  adopt. 

But  further,    language   is  conventional ;  and  the  use 

of  it   varies    much   in   different  ages  and  nations.     No 

uniform   standard  has  existed  by  which  to  measure  the 

expressions  of  men's  conceptions  and  feelings.     In  one 

state   of  society,  language   assumes  a  bolder  character, 

more    unrestrained,   and    more  remote   from    its  proper 

sense ;  in  another,  the   modes  of  speech  are  more  cool 

and  ex?ct.     The  expressions  of  compliment  and  respect, 

for  instance,  in  France  or  Italy,  and   the  expressions  of 

the  Orientals  generally,  are  not  proportional  to  our  own. 

A  sentence  translated   verbally   from  one   language  into 

another  will  often  convey  a   stronger  or  more  unlimited 

meaning   than   was    intended   by   him    who    uttered    it. 

"  John,"  says  our  Saviour,  "  came  neither  eating  nor 


PRINCIPLES  OF    INTERPRETATION.  95 

drinking."*  These  words,  as  spoken  by  him,  had 
nothing  of  the  paradoxical  character  which  would  belong 
to  them,  if  now  uttered  for  the  first  time  in  our  own 
language.  They  meant  only  that  John,  leading  an 
ascetic  life,  refrained  from  taking  food  after  the  common 
fashion,  at  regular  meals.  —  "  Work  out  your  salvation," 
says  St.  Paul,  "  with  fear  and  trembling."  f  The 
Apostle,  who  elsewhere  exhorts  Christians  to  "  rejoice 
always,"  did  not  here  intend  that  their  life  should  be  one 
of  anxious  dread  ;  and  we  may  express  his  purpose  by 
saying,  '  with  earnest  solicitude.'  He  tells  the  Corin- 
thians that  they  had  received  Titus  with  "  fear  and 
trembling,"  J  by  which  words,  in  this  place,  he  means 
what  we  might  call  l  respect  and  deference.'  —  Christ 
says,  that  he  who  would  be  his  follower,  must  "  hate 
father  and  mother."  $  The  genius  of  our  language 
hardly  admits  of  so  bold  a  figure,  by  which,  however, 
nothing  more  was  signified,  than  that  his  followers  must 
be  prepared  to  sacrifice  their  dearest  affections  in  his 
cause.  —  But  even  where  there  is  no  peculiar  boldness 
or  strength  of  expression  in  the  original,  we  are  liable  to 
be  deceived  by  a  want  of  analogy  to  our  modes  of  speech. 
Figures  and  turns  of  expression  familiar  in  one  language 
are  strange  in  another  ;  and  an  expression  to  which  we 
are  not  accustomed  strikes  us  with  more  force,  and  seems 
more  significant,  than  one  in  common  use,  of  which  the 
meanins;  is  in  fact  the  same.  We  are  verv  liable  to  mis- 
take  the  purport  of  words  which  appear  under  an  aspect 
unknown  or  infrequent  in  our  native  tongue.  The  declara- 
tion, "land  my  father  are  one,"  ||  may  seem  to  us  at  first 

*  Matth.  xi.  18.  t  Philippians  ii.  12.  X  2  Cor.  vii.  15. 

§  Luke  xiv.  26.         ||  John  x.  30. 


iwnnwH 


96  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

sight  almost  too  bold  for  a  human  being  to  use  concerning 
God,   merely  because   we    are  not  accustomed  to  this 
expression  in  grave   discourse.     But  in  familiar  conver- 
sation no  one  would  misunderstand  me,  if  while  transact- 
ing some  business  as  the  agent  of  a  friend,  I  should  say, 
( I  and   my    friend  are   one  ' ;  meaning  that  I   am   fully 
impowered  to   act  as  his   representative.     The  passage 
quoted  is  to  be  understood  in  a  similar  manner ;   and  the 
liability  to  mistake  its  meaning  arises  only  from  our  not 
being  familiar  with  its  use  on  solemn  occasions.  —  "The 
Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."* 
We  do  not  express  the  intended  figure  in  this  particular 
form,  the  noun  '  ransom  '  being   commonly  employed  by 
us  only  to    denote  a  price  paid   to    him   who  has   had 
power  over  the  ransomed.    The  passage  has,  consequent- 
ly, been  misunderstood ;  but   the  verb    l  ransom  '  has  a 
wider  significancy,    corresponding  to  the   sense  of  our 
Saviour  ;  and  by  a  very  slight  change   in   the   mode  of 
expression,  the   occasion  of  mistake  is  removed ;  '  The 
Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  to  ransom  many,'  that 
is,  to  deliver  them  from  the  evils  of  ignorance,  error,  and 
sin.  —  "  Whatever,"   said   our    Saviour  to    St.   Peter, 
"  thou   shalt  bind  on  earth   will  be  bound  in   Heaven, 
and  whatever  thou  shalt  loose   on  earth  will  be  loosed  in 
Heaven."  f     This  passage  and  another  corresponding  to 
it,  in  which  the  same  authority  is  extended  to  the  Apostles 
generally,  %  have  been  perverted  to  the  worst  purposes. 
The  figure  in  which  our  Saviour  expressed  his  meaning  is 
not  found  in  modern   languages,  but  was  familiar  to  the 
Jews.     '  To  bind  '  with  them  signified  '  to  forbid  '  and 

o 


*  Matth.  xx.  28.         t  Matth.  xvi.  19.         J  Matth.  xviii.  18. 


PRINCIPLES   OF  INTERPRETATION.  97 

<  to  loose  '  signified  «  to  permit ' ;  *  and  the  meaning  of 
Christ,  was,  '  I  appoint  yon  to  preach  my  religion  by 
which  what  is  forbidden,  is  forbidden  by  God,  and  what 
is  permitted,  is  permitted  by  God.'  As  its  minister  you 
will  speak  in  his  name  and  with  his  authority,  forbidding, 
or  permitting  on  earth  what  is  forbidden  or  permitted  in 
heaven.  —  It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that  in  some  cases 
where  there  is  this  want  of  correspondence  between 
languages,  the  verbal  rendering  of  a  passage  may  be  un- 
intelligible and  even  offensive ;  as  in  the  address  of  St. 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  thus  translated  in  the  Common 
Version  ;  "  Ye  are  not  straitened  in  us,  but  ye  are  strait- 
ened in  your  own  bowels."  f  The  meaning  of  St.  Paul, 
which  a  reader  of  those  words  might  hardly  conjecture, 
is  this  ;  "  You  do  not  suffer  from  any  deficiency  in  us,  but 
you  are  deficient  in  your  own  affections."  —  Sometimes 
a  verbal  rendering  gives  a  sense  altogether  false  ;  "  Now 
I  beseech  you,  brethren,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same 
thing."  %  So  St.  Paul  is  represented  as  addressing  the 
Corinthians  in  the  Common  Version.  But  '  to  speak 
the  same  thing '  was  a  phrase  used  in  Greek  in  a  sense 
unknown  in  English,  to  denote  '  agreeing  together ' ;  and 
the  exhortation  in  fact,  was,  that  they  should  -  all  agree 
together.' — These  examples,  few  as  they  are,  may 
serve  to  illustrate  the  mistakes  to  which  we  are  exposed 

*  See  Wetstein's  note  on  Matth.  xvi.  19, 

t  2  Cor.  vi.  12. —  To  one  acquainted  with  the  French  language, 
the  character  of  the  rendering  in  the  Common  Version  may  be  illus- 
trated, by  supposing  a  verbal  translation  ot  the  following  account  ol 
a  tragic  actress  :  "  Elle  sait  emouvoir  et  toucher  :  jamais  comedienne 
n'eut  plus  d'entrailles." 

$  1  Cor.  i.  10. 

9 


98  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

from  the  want  of  analogy  between  languages ;  and  to 
show  that  the  true  meaning  of  a  passage  may  be  very 
different  from  the  sense  which,  without  further  inquiry, 
we  should  receive  from  a  verbal  rendering  of  it  into 
English.  A  verbal  rendering  of  an  ancient  author  must  be 
often  false,  ambiguous,  or  unintelligible,  and  when  not 
exposed  to  graver  charges,  will  commonly  fail  in  preserv- 
ing the  full  significancy,  the  spirit  and  character,  of  the 
original. 

Those  which  have  been  mentioned  are  some  of  the 
principal  causes  of  the  ambiguity  of  language  ;  or,  as  we 
may  say  in  other  terms,  they  are  some  of  the  principal 
modes  in  which  this  ambiguity  manifests  itself.  But  a 
full  analysis  of  the  subject,  accompanied  by  proper 
examples,  would  fill  many  pages.  From  what  has  been 
already  said,  the  truth  of  the  propositions  maintained 
will,  I  think,  appear,  at  least  sufficiently  for  our  present 
purpose. 

It  is,  then,  to  the  intrinsic  ambiguity  of  language,  that 
the  art  of  interpretation  owes  its  origin.  If  words  and 
sentences  were  capable  of  expressing  but  a  single  mean- 
ing, no  art  would  be  required  in  their  interpretation. 
It  would  be,  as  a  late  writer,  *  thoroughly  ignorant  of  the 
subject,  supposes,  a  work  to  be  performed  merely  with 
the  assistance  of  a  lexicon  and  grammar.  The  object  of 
the  art  of  interpretation  is  to  enable  us  to  solve  the  diffi- 
culties presented  by  the  intrinsic  ambiguity  of  language. 
It  first  teaches  us  to  perceive  the  different  meanings 
which  any  sentence  may  be  used  to  express,  as  the  dif- 
ferent words  of  which  it  is  composed  are  taken  respect- 

*  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers.     See  the  conclusion  of  the  article,  Chris- 
tianity, in  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  99 

ively  in  one  sense  or  another ;  as  it  is  understood  literally, 
or  figuratively  ;  strictly  and  to  the  letter,  or  popularly 
and  in  a  modified  sense ;  as  the  language  of  emotion,  or 
as  a  calm  and  unimpassioned  expression  of  thoughts  and 
sentiments  ;  as  the  language  of  one  age  or  nation,  or  that 
of  another ;  and  it  then  teaches  us  (which  is  its  ultimate 
purpose)  to  distinguish  among  possible  meanings,  the 
actual  meaning  of  the  sentence,  or  that  meaning  which, 
in  the  particular  case  wTe  are  considering,  was  intended 
by  the  author.  And  in  what  manner  does  it  enable  us 
to  do  this  ?  Here  again  a  full  and  particular  answer  to 
this  question  is  not  to  be  comprised  in  the  compass  of  a 
few  pages.  The  general  answer  is,  that  it  enables  us  to 
do  this  by  directing  our  attention  to  all  those  considera- 
tions which  render  it  probable,  that  one  meaning  was 
intended  by  the  writer  rather  than  another. 

Some  of  these  considerations  are,  the  character  of  the 
writer,  his  habits  of  thinking  and  feeling,  his  common 
style  of  expression,  and  that  of  his  age  or  nation,  his 
settled  opinions  and  belief,  the  extent  of  his  knowledge, 
the  general  state  of  things  during  the  time  in  which  he 
lived,  the  particular  local  and  temporary  circumstances 
present  to  his  mind  while  writing,  the  character  and  con- 
dition of  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  the  opinions  of  others 
to  which  he  had  reference,  the  connexion  of  the  sentence, 
or  the  train  of  thought  by  which  it  is  preceded  and  follow- 
ed, and,  finally,  the  manner  in  which  he  was  understood 
by  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  —  a  consideration,  the  im- 
portance of  which  varies  with  circumstances.  The  con- 
siderations to  be  attended  to  by  an  interpreter  are  here 
reduced  to  their  elements.  I  cannot  dwell  long  enough 
upon  the  subject,  to  point  out  all  the  different  forms  and 


100  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

combinations  in  which  they  may  appear.  But  where  the 
words  which  compose  a  sentence  are  such,  that  the  sen- 
tence may  be  used  to  express  more  than  one  meaning, 
its  true  meaning  is  to  be  determined  solely  by  a  refer- 
ence to  extrinsic  considerations,  such  as  have  been 
stated.  In  the  case  supposed  (a  case  of  very  frequent 
occurrence)  all  that  we  can  learn  from  the  mere  words  of 
the  sentence,  is,  the  different  meanings  which  the  sen- 
tence is  capable  of  expressing.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
words  considered  in  themselves,  can  afford  no  assistance 
in  determining,  which  of  those  different  meanings  was 
that  intended  by  the  author.  This  problem  is  to  be 
solved  solely  by  a  process  of  reasoning,  founded  upon 
such  considerations  as  have  been  stated. 

I  will  illustrate  this  account  of  the  principles  of  inter- 
pretation by  an  example  of  their  application. 

Of  Milton,  Dr.  Johnson  says,  that 

"  He  had  considered  creation  in  its  whole  extent,  and 
his  descriptions  are  therefore  learned." 

"  But  he  could  not  be  always  in  other  worlds,  he 
must  sometimes  return  to  earth,  and  talk  of  things  visible 
and  known." 

Addison  tells  us,  that  "  he  knew  all  the  arts  of  affect- 
ing the  mind." 

Bentley,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Paradise 
Lost,  speaks  of  him  thus  : 

"  He  could  expatiate  at  large  through  the  compass  of 
the  whole  universe,  and  through  all  Heaven  beyond  it ; 
could  survey  all  periods  of  time  from  before  the  creation 
to  the  consummation  of  all  things." 

"  Milton's  strong  pinion  now  not  Heaven  can  bound," 
are  the  words  of  Pope. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  101 

"He  passed,"  says  Gray,  '-'the    flaming   bounds  of 
space  and  time,  and  saw  the  living  throne  of  God." 

In  the  age  subsequent  to  his  own,  "he  continued  " 
says  Aikin,  "  to  stand  alone,  an  insulated  form  of  unrival- 
led greatness." 

Why  do  we  not  understand  all  this  language  strictly 
and  to  the  letter?  Why,  without  a  moment's  hesitation, 
do  we  put  upon  the  expressions  of  all  these  different 
authors,  a  sense  so  very  remote  from  that  which  their 
words  are  adapted  to  convey,  when  viewed  independent- 
ly of  any  extrinsic  consideration  by  which  they  may  be 
explained  ?  The  answer  is,  because  we  are  satisfied 
(no  matter  how)  that  all  these  writers  believed  Milton  to 
be  a  man,  and  one  not  endued  with  supernatural  powers. 
This  consideration  determines  us  at  once  to  regard  their 
language  as  figurative,  or  as  requiring  very  great  limita- 
tion of  its  verbal  meaning. 

Let  us  attend  to  another  example  of  the  application  of 
those    principles   which    have    been    laid    down.       Our 
Saviour    says,  "  He  who  lives  through  his    faith   in  me 
shall  never  die";*  and  similar  declarations,   as   every 
one  must  remember,   were  often  repeated  by  him.     I 
recollect  to  have  met  with  a  passage  in  an  infidel  writer, 
in  which  it  was  maintained  that  these  declarations   were 
to  be  understood   literally  ;  and  that  Christ  meant  to  as- 
sure his  disciples  that  they  should  not  suffer  the  com- 
mon  lot  of  man.     Why  do  we  not   understand  them 
literally  ?     Because  we   are  satisfied  that  our  Saviour's 
character  was  such,  that  he  would  not  predict  a  falsehood. 
An  infidel,  likewise,  might  easily  satisfy  himself,  that  his 

*  John  xi.  28. 

9# 


«ff 


102  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION, 

character  was  such,  that  he  would  not  predict  what  the 
next  day's  experience  might  prove  to  be  a  falsehood. 

I  will  give  one  more  example :  "  Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no 
life  in  you."  *  He  who  will  turn  to  the  context  of  the 
passage,  may  see  that  this  declaration  is  repeated  and 
insisted  upon  by  our  Saviour,  in  a  variety  of  phrases  and 
in  different  relations.  The  Roman  Catholics  understand 
this  passage,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  words 
used  in  instituting  our  Lord's  supper,  as  a  decisive  argu- 
ment for  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  If  either 
doctrine  were  capable  of  proof,  I  should  certainly  think 
that  there  was  no  passage  in  Scripture,  which  went  so 
far  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  this  does  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  Why  then  do 
we  not  understand  the  words  in  the  sense  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  ?  Why  do  we  suppose  a  figure  so  bold,  and  to 
our  ears  so  harsh,  as  we  are  compelled  to  suppose,  if  we 
do  not  understand  them  literally  ?  Solely  because  we 
have  such  notions  of  the  character  and  doctrines  of  our 
Saviour,  that  we  are  satisfied  that  he  would  not  teach 
any  thing  irrational  or  absurd  ;  and  that  the  declaration 
in  question  would  be  very  irrational,  if  understood  literal- 
ly without  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation; 
and  altogether  absurd,  if  supposed  to  imply  the  truth  of 
this  doctrine.  It  is  upon  the  same  principle,  that  we 
interpret  a  very  large  proportion  of  all  the  figurative 
language  which  we  meet  with.  We  at  once  reject  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  words,  and  understand  them  as 
figurative,  because  if  we  did  not  do  this,  they  would  con- 

*John  vi.  53. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  103 

vey  some  meaning  which  contradicts  common  sense; 
and  it  would  he  inconsistent  with  our  notions  of  the  writer, 
to  suppose  him  to  intend  such  a  meaning.  But  this 
principle,  which  is  adopted  unconsciously  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  all  other  writings,  has  been  grossly  disregard- 
ed in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  If  one  should 
interpret  any  other  writings  (except  those  in  the  exact 
sciences)  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  Scriptures 
have  been  explained,  he  might  find  as  many  absurdities 
in  the  former,  as  there  are  pretended  mysteries  in  the 
latter. 

Upon  the  principle  just  stated,  we  may  reject  the 
literal  meaning  of  a  passage,  when  we  cannot  pronounce 
with  confidence,  what  is  its  true  meaning.  The  words 
of  our  Saviour  just  quoted,  are  an  example  in  point. 
One  may  be  fully  justified  in  rejecting  their  literal  mean- 
ing, who  is  wholly  unable  to  determine  their  true  mean- 
ing. To  do  this  is  certainly  no  easy  matter.  Similar 
difficulties,  that  is,  passages  about  the  true  meaning  of 
which  we  can  feel  no  confidence,  though  we  may  con- 
fidently reject  some  particular  meaning  which  the  words 
will  bear,  are  to  be  found  in  all  other  ancient  writings  as 
well  as  the  Scriptures. 

If  the  facts  and  principles  respecting  interpretation 
which  have  been  stated  are  correct,  any  one  who  will 
examine  what  has  been  written  concerning  this  subject, 
may  perceive  how  little  it  has  been  understood  by  a  large 
proportion  of  those  who  have  undertaken  to  lay  down 
rules  of  exposition,  and  how  much  it  has  been  involved 
in  obscurity  and  error.  There  are  many  writers,  who 
appear  neither  to  have  had  any  distinct  conception  of  the 
truth,   that  sentences  are  continually  occurring,  which 


104  Principles  of  interpretation, 

may  severally  express  very  different  senses,  when  we 
attend  only  to  the  words  of  which  they  are  composed  ; 
nor  of  consequence,  any  just  notions  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  actual  meaning  of  such  sentences  is  to  be 
determined.  Yet  it  is  to  such  sentences  that  the  art 
of  interpretation  is  to  be  applied ;  and  its  purpose  is,  to 
teach  us  in  what  manner  their  ambiguity  may  be  re- 
solved. 

We  are  now  then  prepared  to  answer  the  question 
formerly  proposed.  Certain  passages  are  adduced  by 
Trinitarians  in  support  of  their  opinions.  We  do  not 
deny  that  there  are  expressions  in  some  of  these  passa- 
ges, which,  the  words  alone  being  regarded,  will  hear 
a  Trinitarian  sense.  How  is  it  to  be  ascertained  wheth- 
er this  sense,  or  some  other,  was  intended  by  the 
writer  ? 

Now  this  is  a  question,  which,  as  we  have  shown,  is 
to  be  determined  solely  by  extrinsic  considerations  ; 
and  all  those  considerations  that  have  been  brought  into 
view  in  the  former  part  of  this  discussion,  bear  directly 
upon  the  point  at  issue.  My  purpose  has  been  to 
prove  that  the  Trinitarian  doctrines  were  not  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  If  this  has  been  proved,  it 
has  been  proved  that  they  were  not  taught  by  them  in 
any  particular  passage.  All  the  considerations  that 
have  been  brought  forward  apply  directly  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  any  words  that  may  be  adduced ;  and  if 
these  considerations  are  decisive,  then  it  is  certain,  that 
the  Trinitarian  exposition  of  every  passage  of  the  New 
Testament  must  be  false.  Their  force  can  be  avoided 
but  in  one   way,  not  by  proving,  positively,  that  certain 


PRINCIPLES   OF  INTERPRETATION.  105 

words  will  bear  a  Trinitarian  meaning  —  that  is  conced- 
ed—  but  by  proving,  negatively,  that  it  is  impossible 
these  words  should  be  used  in  any  other  than  a  Trinitarian 
meaning  —  that  they  admit  of  but  one  sense,  which, 
under  all  circumstances  they  must  be  intended  to  ex- 
press. But  this  no  man  of  common  information  will 
maintain.  If,  then,  there  be  not  some  gross  error  in  the 
preceding  reasonings,  the  controversy  respecting  the 
Trinitarian  exposition  of  those  passages  is  decided. 
Whatever  may  be  their  true  sense,  the  Trinitarian  ex- 
position must  be  false. 

But  I  will  now  recur  to  the  essential  character  of  the 
Trinitarian  doctrines,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
though  there  are  words  in  the  New  Testament,  which, 
abstractly  considered,  will  bear  some  one  or  other  Trini- 
tarian sense,  yet  that  this  sense  can  be  ascribed  to  them 
only  in  violation  of  a  fundamental  principle  of  interpre- 
tation. 


SECTION  VIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  INTERPRETATION  VIOLATED  BY 
TRINITARIAN  EXPOSITORS.  NO  PROPOSITION  CAN  BE  IN- 
COMPREHENSIBLE, IN  ITSELF  CONSIDERED,  FROM  THE  NA- 
TURE OF    THE  IDEAS  EXPRESSED  BY  IT. 

The  principle  of  interpretation  to  which  I  refer  is  so 
constantly  present  to  the  mind  of  every  one.  and  is  acted 
upon  so  unconsciously,  in  reading  all  other  books  but 
the  Scriptures,  that  except  in  reference  to  them,  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  announce  it  or  advert  to  it.  It  has 
been  already  mentioned.  In  many  cases,  as  I  have 
said,  "  we  at  once  reject  the  literal  meaning  of  words, 
and  understand  them  as  figurative,  because,  if  we  did 
not  do  this,  they  would  convey  some  meaning  which 
contradicts  common  sense ;  and  it  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  our  notions  of  the  writer  to  suppose  him 
to  intend  such  a  meaning."  Men's  minds  being  consti- 
tuted alike,  so  that  when  a  subject  is  clearly  understood, 
what  appears  an  absurdity  to  one  will  appear  an  absurdi- 
ty to  another,  we  do  not  ascribe  an  absurd  meaning  to 
the  language  of  any  writer,  except  upon  the  special  con- 
sideration of  some  well  known  peculiarity  of  belief,  or 
defect  or  cloudiness  of  intellect.  Yet  a  great  part  of  all 
language  diverted  in  any  way  from  its  literal  sense  will 
bear  an  absurd  meaning,  that  is,  admits  of  being  so  inter- 
preted when  the  words  alone  are  regarded. 


ERROR  CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.         107 

We  may  take  as  instances  of  this  the  examples  of  the 
use  of  language  quoted  in  the  preceding  section.  But  I 
will  produce  a  few  more  passages  from  which  it  may 
appear  to  those  not  familiar  with  the  subject,  how  absurd 
or  false  the  literal  meaning  of  language  often  is,  and  how 
instantly  and  unconsciously  it  is  rejected  upon  the  prin- 
ciple I  have  stated.  I  give  them  without  comment, 
for  none  is  required.  My  purpose  is  merely  to  call 
attention  to  a  fact  respecting  the  use  of  language,  which 
though  frequently  overlooked,  must  be  acknowledged  as 
soon  as  it  is  pointed  out. 

Speaking  of  the  conciliatory  measures  toward  the 
American  colonies,  adopted  by  the  Rockingham  admin- 
istration just  before  its  dissolution,  Mr.  Burke  says  ;  "  The 
question  of  the  repeal  [of  the  Stamp  Act]  was  brought 
on  by  ministry  in  the  committee  of  this  house,  in  the 
very  instant  when  it  was  known,  that  more  than  one 
court  negotiation  was  carrying  on  with  the  heads  of  the 
opposition.  Every  thing  on  every  side  was  full  of  traps 
and  mines.  Earth  below  shook ;  heaven  above  men- 
aced. " 

Speaking  of  the  rapid  increase  of  numbers,  in  these 
colonies,  he  says  ;  "  Such  is  the  strength  with  which 
population  shoots  in  that  part  of  the  world,  that  state  the 
number  as  high  as  we  will,  whilst  the  dispute  continues, 
the  exaggeration  ends.  Whilst  we  are  discussing  any 
given  magnitude,  they  are  grown  to  it." 

"  A  strong  and  habitually  indulged  imagination,"  says 
Foster,  "  has  incantations  to  dissolve  the  rigid  laws  of 
time  and  distance,  and  to  place  a  man  in  something  so 
like  the  presence  of  his  object,  that  he  seems  half  to 
possess   it ;    and  it  is  hard  while  occupying  the  verge 


108  ON  A  FUNDAMENTAL  ERROR 

of  paradise,  to  be  flung  far  back  in  order  to  find  or 
make  a  path  to  it,  with  the  slow  and  toilsome  steps  of 
reality." 

Remarking  upon  the  responsibility  of  writers  of  ficti- 
tious narratives,  in  regard  to  the  characters  they  delineate, 
the  same  author  has  the  following  passage  ;  "  They  create 
a  new  person ;  and  in  sending  him  into  society,  they 
can  choose  whether  his  example  shall  tend  to  improve 
or  pervert  the  minds  that  will  be  compelled  to  admire 
him." 

I  will  quote  a  few  more  sentences,  from  Young. 

"  The  deathbed  of  the  just 

Is  it  his  deathbed?     No;   it  is  his  shrine: 
Behold  him  there  just  rising  to  a  God." 
***** 

"  Shall  we  this  moment  gaze  on  God  in  man; 
The  next  lose  man  for  ever  in  the  dust  ?  " 
***** 

"  A  Christian  dwells,  like  Uriel,  in  the  sun." 
Speaking  of  the  beauty  of  the  material  world  as  rela- 
tive to  our   perceptions,  and  existing  only  so  far  as  it  is 
perceived  by  the  eye  of  man : 

"  But  for  the  magic  organ's  powerful  charm, 

Earth  were  a  rude,  uncolored  chaos  still 

Ours  is  the  cloth,  the  pencil,  and  the  paint, 

Which  Nature's  admirable  picture  draws 

Like  Milton's  Eve,  while  gazing  on  the  lake, 
Man  makes  the  matchless  image  man  admires. 

Say  then,  shall  man,  his  thoughts  all  sent  abroad, 

His  admiration  waste  on  objects  round, 

When  Heaven  makes  him  the  soul  of  all  he  sees  ?  " 

Any  person  in  his  common  reading  may  find  number- 
less similar  passages,  of  which  we  reject  without  hesita- 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  109 

tion  the  verbal  meaning,  simply  because   it  is  absurd  or 
evidently  false.     But  this  principle  has  not  been  regard- 
ed in  the  interpretation   of  Scripture.     The  believer  in 
transubstantiation   contends,  that  we    are   to   understand 
verbally  the  declaration  ;  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his   blood,  ye  have   no  life   in 
you."     The   sect   of  the   Antinomians   would   have  us 
take  to  the  letter  the  words  of  St.   Paul,  as  rendered  in 
the  Common  Version ;  "  For  to  him  who   worketh  not, 
but  believeth  on  him  who  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith 
is  counted  for  righteousness."     And  of  the  believers  in 
the  doctrine  of  Atonement,    some  contend,  that  when 
the  Apostle  speaks  of  the  church  as  being  "  purchased 
by  the    blood  of  Christ,"  or,  as  they  "would    have    it 
read,  '  by  the  blood  of  God,'  we  are  to  regard  the  blood 
of  the  Son  as  being  .paid,   as  it  were,  to  the   Father  to 
deliver  us   from  his   wrath.     All  the   errors   connected 
with    Christianity   have    appealed   for  support    to  such 
verbal  misinterpretations  of  particular  passages.     Hence 
it  has  been  said,  that  any  thing  may  be  proved  from  the 
Scriptures.     And   it   is  true,  that  if  we   proceed  in  so 
erroneous  a  method,   and  neglect   every  fact  and  princi- 
ple which  ought  to  be  attended  to  in  the   interpretation 
of  language,  there  is  no   meaning  too  false,  too  absurd, 
or  too  ridiculous,  to  be  educed   from  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture, or,  equally,  from  those  of  any  popular  writing.     An 
experiment    may    be    made    upon    the    passages    just 
quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraphs.  * 

*"  Quae  lex, quod  senatus-consultum,quodmagistratusedictum.quod 
foedus,  aut  pactio,  quod  (ut  ad  privatas  res  redeam)  testamentum, 
quae  judicia,  aut  stipulationes,  aut  pacti  et  conventi  formula  non  in- 

10 


110  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

It  is  in  the  verbal  manner  spoken  of,  that  the  passages 
brought  to  prove  the  Trinitarian  doctrines  have  been 
interpreted.     But  in  order  to  withdraw  the   propositions 

firmari,  aut  convelli  potest,  si  ad  verba  rem  deflectere  velimus  ;  con- 
silium autem  eorum,  qui  scripserunt,  et  rationem,  et  auctoritatem 
relinquamus  ?  Sermo  mehercule  et  familiaris  et  quotidianus  non 
cohrerebit,  si  verba  inter  nos  aucupabimur.  Denique  imperium  do- 
mesticum  nullum  erit,  si  servulis  hoc  nostris  concesserimus,  ut  ad 
verba  nobis  obediant;  non  ad  id,  quod  ex  verbis  intelligi  possit,  ob- 
temperent." 

"  What  law,  what  decree  of  the  Senate,  what  ordinance  of  a  mag- 
istrate, what  treaty  or  convention,  or,  to  return  to  private  concerns, 
what  testament,  what  judicial  decision,  what  stipulation,  what  form 
of  agreement  may  not  be  invalidated  or  disannulled,  if  we  insist  on 
bending  the  meaning  to  the  words,  and  neglect  the  intent,  purport, 
and  will  of  the  writer  ?  Truly,  our  familiar  and  e  very-day  discourse 
would  have  little  coherence,  if  we  lay  in  wait  for  each  other's  words. 
There  would  be  no  domestic  government,  if  we  allowed  our  slaves  to 
obey  our  commands  in  their  verbal  meaning,  and  not  in  that  sense 
in  which  the  words  are  to  be  understood." 

Cicero.  Orat.  pro  A.  Ceecina.   §   18. 

A  late  writer,  however,  to  whom  I  have  before  adverted,  p.  98. 
Dr.  Chalmers,  (in  the  article  there  mentioned)  contends  earnestly 
that  the  verbal  method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  is  the  true 
method.  "  The  examination  of  the  Scriptures,"  he  says,  "  is  a  pure 
work  of  grammatical  analysis.  It  is  an  unmixed  question  of  lan- 
guage." "  We  admit  of  no  other  instrument  than  the  vocabulary  and 
the  lexicon."  "  The  mind  or  meaning  of  an  author  who  is  translat- 
ed, is  purely  a  question  of  language,  and  should  be  decided  upon  no 
other  principles  than  those  of  grammar  or  philology."  But  this  prin- 
ciple "has  been  most  glaringly  departed  from  in  the  case  of  the  Bi- 
ble ; the  meaning  of  its  author,  instead  of  being  made  singly 

and  entirely  a  question  of  grammar,  has  been  made  a  question  of 
metaphysics,  or  a  question  of  sentiment : instead  of  the  argu- 
ment resorted  to  being,  Such  must  be  the  rendering  from  the  struc- 
ture of  language,  and  the  import  and  significancy  of  its  phrases;  it 
has  been,  Such  must  be  the  rendering  from  the  analogy  of  faith,  the 
reason  of  the  thing,  the  character  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  the  wisdom 
of  all  his  dispensations."     There  are  Christians  "  who  in  addition  to 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  Ill 

thus  resulting,  from  the  jurisdiction  of  reason,  they  have 
been  called  incomprehensible  mysteries.  A  certain 
obscurity   has   thus   been  thrown  over    the    subject  by 

the  Word  of  God  talk  also  of  the  reason  of  the  thing."  "  Could  we 
only  dismiss  the  uncertain  fancies  of  a  daring  and  presumptuous 
theology,  sit  down  like  a  school-boy  to  his  task,  and  look  upon  the 
study  of  divinity  as  a  mere  work  of  translation,  then  we  should  ex- 
pect the  same  unanimity  among  Christians,  that  we  meet  with  among 
scholars  and  literati  about  the  system  of  Epicurus,  or  the  philosophy 
of  Aristotle." 

The  illustration  is  particularly  unhappy,  at  least  so  far  as  regards 
the  philosophy  of  Aristotle.  But  I  do  not  insist  on  this,  nor  on  the 
looseness  and  uncertainty  of  some  of  the  language  which  I  have 
quoted.  The  main  ideas  are  sufficiently  apparent.  We  are  to  come 
to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  merely  with  our  grammar  and  lexi- 
con. Having  done  so,  let  us  consider  how  we  shall  proceed.  Our 
lexicon  will  exhibit  to  us  ten  or  twenty  different  meanings,  perhaps, 
of  some  of  the  most  important  words  in  a  sentence.  Our  grammar, 
beside  teaching  us  the  relations  of  words  to  each  other,  will  discover 
to  us  the  various  and  often  numerous  modifications  of  meaning, 
which  some  alteration  in  the  form  of  a  word  renders  it  capable  of 
expressing.  If  it  happen  to  have  an  appendix  treating  of  the  rhetor- 
ical figures,  we  may  also  learn  something  from  it  concerning  the 
many  changes  of  signification  to  which  words  are  subjected  accord- 
ing to  established  modes  of  speech ;  though  our  knowledge,  if  de- 
rived merely  from  this  source,  may  not  be  extensive.  But  as  yet  we 
are  furnished  only  with  objects  of  choice  among  a  variety  of  mean- 
ings, without  any  thing  to  decide  us  how  to  choose.  We  have  only 
learnt,  and  that  but  very  imperfectly,  what  the  words  may  signify ;  our 
business  is  to  learn,  what  they  do  signify.  Take  a  sentence,  which 
in  different  relations  may  be  used  to  express  different  meanings  with 
equal  propriety  —  and  such  sentences  are  constantly  occurring  — 
what  assistance  will  our  grammar  or  lexicon  afford  to  determine  in 
any  particular  case  its  actual  meaning  ?     Certainly  none  at  all. 

But  in  the  process  of  interpretation,  we  are  to  have  recourse  to  no 
other  instruments.  We  are  expressly  enjoined,  for  instance,  to  ex- 
clude all  consideration  of  the  reason  of  the  thing.  By  this  must  be 
meant,  that  we  are  not  to  consider,  what  may  reasonably  be  said 
upon  any  subject ;  or,  in  other  words,  what  a  reasonable  man,  with 


112  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

which  some  minds  are  perplexed.  I  will  now,  there- 
fore, attempt  to  show,  what,  I  think,  may  be  shown 
clearly,   that  no    proposition   can    be   incomprehensible 

no  false  opinions,  would  say  concerning  it.  Let  us  try  then  how  we 
shall  succeed  in  interpreting  Scripture,  after  having  excluded  this 
and  every  other  extrinsie  consideration.  St.  Luke  ascribes  these 
words  to  our  Saviour ;  "  Blessed  are  ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  Shall  we  exclude  all  consideration  of  the  reason  of  the 
thing,  and  taking  the  word,  -poor,  in  its  most  common  and  obvious 
sense,  understand  our  Saviour  as  asserting  for  a  universal  truth,  that 
all  men  destitute  of  property  axe  blessed  ?  But  these  words,  it  will 
be  said,  are  explained  by  the  parallel  passage  in  St.  Matthew.  Ex- 
plained by  a  parallel  passage!  We  are,  then,  very  soon  obliged 
to  have  recourse  to  something  beside  our  grammar  and  lexicon. 
But  how  are  they  explained  by  the  passage  in  St.  Matthew  ?  "  Bless- 
ed are  the  poor  in  spirit."  Without  taking  any  extrinsic  con- 
sideration into  view,  but  confining  ourselves  to  the  mere  words  before 
us,  in  which  of  the  many  meanings  of  the  word  spirit  shall  we  here 
understand  it?  Shall  we  receive  it  in  a  sense,  which  occurs  repeat- 
edly in  the  New  Testament,  according  to  which  it  denotes  the  temper 
and  virtues  of  a  Christian,  and  understand  the  words  as  meaning  • 
'  Blessed  are  they  who  are  poor  in  the  temper  and  virtues  of  a  Chris- 
tian.' But  leaving  these  difficult  passages,  he  who  chooses  to  put 
out  of  view  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  all  those  other  circumstances 
which  ought  to  determine  our  judgment,  may  proceed  with  his  gram- 
mar and  lexicon  to  the  next  beatitude  of  our  Saviour,  and  then  to  the 
next;  and  then  he  may  open  at  random  upon  any  passage  of  the 
New  Testament,  till  he  has  satisfied  himself  respecting  the  practica- 
bility of  his  method. 

If  the  opinions  on  which  I  have  remarked  were  the  extravagances 
of  an  individual  writer  alone,  so  long  a  notice  of  them  would  hardly 
be  justifiable.  But  the  assertions,  ]  cannot  say  the  arguments,  of 
Dr.  Chalmers  are  intended  to  maintain  a  system  of  interpretation  in 
which  the  false  doctrines  that  have  been  connected  with  Christianity 
have  found  their  main  support.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
the  verbal  method  of  interpretation  is,  in  fact,  principally  confined  to 
passages  brought  in  proof  of  those  doctrines,  and  is  abandoned  in  re- 
gard to  other  portions  of  Scripture,  to  which  its  application  woul4 
produce  some  unsanctioned  error  or  absurdity. 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  113 

from  the  nature  of  the  ideas  expressed ;  that  there  can 
be  no  meaning  conveyed  in  words,  which  is  not  perfectly 
intelligible,  I  do  not  say  by  this  or  that  individual,  but 
by  the  human  understanding. 

Words  are  only  human  instruments  for  the  expression 
of  human  ideas  ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  they  should 
express  any  thing  else.  The  meaning  of  words  is  that 
idea  or  aggregate  of  ideas  which  men  have  associated 
with  certain  sounds  or  letters.  They  have  no  other 
meaning  than  what  is  given  them  by  men  ;  and  this 
meaning  must  be  always  such  as  the  human  understand- 
ing is  capable  of  conceiving ;  for  we  can  associate  with 
sounds  or  letters,  no  idea  or  aggregate  of  ideas  which 
we  have  not.  Ideas,  therefore,  with  which  the  human 
understanding  is  conversant  are  all  that  can  be  expressed 
by  words.  If  an  angel  have  faculties  of  a  different 
nature  from  those  which  we  possess,  he  can  make  no 
use  of  our  language  to  convey  to  our  minds  the  results 
of  their  exercise.  If  any  being  have  more  senses  than 
we  have,  he  can  find  no  words  of  ours  to  express  to  us 
his  new  perceptions.  It  being  impossible,  therefore, 
that  words  should  be  employed  to  denote  any  thing  but 
human  ideas ;  whenever  they  have  a  meaning,  this 
meaning  though  liable  to  be  mistaken,  must  in  its  own 
nature  be   capable  of  being  fully  understood. 

To  talk  of  an  incomprehensible  meaning,  if  we  use 
the  word  '  incomprehensible  '  in  a  strict  sense,  is  to  em- 
ploy terms  which  in  themselves  express  an  absurdity. 
It  is  the  same  sort  of  language,  as  if  we  were  to  speak 
of  an  invisible  illumination.  The  meaning  of  a  sentence 
is  the  ideas  which  it  is  adapted  to  convey  to  the  mind  of 
10* 


114  ON    A  FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

him  who  reads  or  hears  it.  But  if  it  be  capable  of  con- 
veying any  ideas,  that  is,  if  it  have  any  meaning,  it  is 
merely  stating  the  same  fact  in  other  terms,  to  say,  that 
those  ideas  are  capable  of  being  received  and  under- 
stood. 

No  one,  indeed,  will  deny,  that  there  are  many 
truths  incomprehensible  by  us  ;  which  are  above  reason, 
or,  in  other  words,  which  are  wholly  out  of  the  grasp  of 
our  present  faculties.  But  these  truths  cannot  be  ex- 
pressed in  human  language.  Nor,  while  our  faculties 
remain  what  they  are,  can  they  be  in  any  way  revealed 
to  us.  To  reveal  is  to  make  known.  But  what  cannot 
be  comprehended  cannot  be  made  known,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  revealed. 

This  very  plain  subject  has  been  obscured  by  a  loose 
and  ambiguous  use  of  language.  It  is  said,  that  we  be- 
lieve truths  which  we  do  not  comprehend  ;  —  that  wTe 
believe  that  the  grass  grows ;  but  do  not  know  how  it 
grows  ;  —  that  we  believe  that  some  things  are  infinite  ; 
but  that  we  do  not  comprehend  infinity  ;  —  that  we 
believe  that  God  knows  all  things ;  but  that  we  cannot 
form  a  conception  of  omniscience.  Let  us  examine 
these  propositions.  The  grass  grows :  do  we  not  know 
what  we  mean  when  we  use  these  words  ?  It  is  as  intel- 
ligible a  proposition  as  can  be  stated.  We  affirm,  and 
we  intend  nothing  more  than  to  affirm,  that  certain  well 
known,  sensible  phenomena  take  place.  It  is  true  that 
we  do  not  know  how  it  grows,  that  is  to  say,  we 
do  not  know  the  proximate  causes  of  its  growth  ;  and  it 
is  equally  true,  that  we  affirm  nothing  about  those 
causes  in  the  proposition  stated.  Our  affirmation  does 
not  extend  beyond  our  knowledge.     The  fact  that  there 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE*  115 

are  many  phenomena  of  which  we  cannot  assign  the  caus- 
es, does  not  tend  to  prove  that  when  we  affirm  those  phe- 
nomena to  exist,  we  utter  incomprehensible  propositions. 
But  we  say   of  many  things  that  they  are  or   may  be 
infinite;  that  space  and   duration  are   infinite;  that  the 
attributes  of  God  are   infinite  ;  that  our  own  existence 
will  be  infinite  or  without  termination ;  and   we   do  not 
understand  what  is  meant  by  infinity  ;  we  do  not  com- 
prehend these  truths.     I  answer  that  if  we  do  not  com- 
prehend those  propositions  ;  if  they  are  unintelligible  ; 
it  is  very  idle  to   make  them.'    We  do  not  comprehend 
infinity  in  itself  considered  ;  but  we  comprehend  our  own 
idea  of  infinity,  with  the   knowledge,   as   in   very  many 
other   cases,  that  it  is  an  inadequate  idea.     Our  ideas  of 
things   infinite   are,   as  that   word    implies,  *  essentially 
negative  ideas.     They  consist  in  the  conception  of  cer- 
tain things   accompanied   with   the  belief  of  the  absence 
of  all  limit  or  termination.     We  not  only  have  an  idea  of 
infinity,   but  it  is  impossible  we  should  not  have.     The 
very  constitution  of  our   minds   is  such  that   we  cannot, 
for  instance,  imagine  a  period  when  time  began,  or  when 
it  may  end.     It  is  true  that  we  are  unable   to  conceive 
of  infinity  positively,   we  do  not  understand   all   its  na- 
ture ;  and  we  can    reason   about  it  therefore  but  very 
partially.     It  belongs  to  the  class  of  inadequate   ideas, 
which  includes  far  the  greater  portion  of  all  our  ideas ; 
and  the  propositions  relating  to  it  are  no  more  unintelli- 
gible than  the   propositions  which  relate  to    other  ideas 
of  this  class.       I   affirm,  that    the  same    person    who 
called  on  me  to-day  visited  me  yesterday  ;  and  there  is 


*  From  the  Latin  in  negative  and  jinitus. 


-~~.  1  imn  -  — -i-- 


116  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

no  one,  I  think,  who  will  maintain  that  this  is  an  incom- 
prehensible proposition.  Yet  there  are  few  who  will 
pretend  to  have  a  perfectly  adequate  idea  of  identity, 
the  notion  of  which  is  involved  in  the  proposition  just 
stated ;  and  many  questions  may  be  raised  respecting 
this  subject,  a?  well  as  respecting  infinity,  by  which  most 
minds  would  be  perplexed.  I  say  that  the  sun  is  the 
principal  source  of  light  and  heat;  and  the  proposition 
is  perfectly  intelligible.  But  I  have  not  an  adequate 
idea  of  the  sun  ;  there  are  many  things  concerning  it, 
as  well  as  concerning  infinity,  which  I  can  neither 
affirm  nor  deny.  I  cannot  say  for  instance  whether, 
as  some  have  imagined,  it  be  adapted  to  the  support  of 
animals  and  vegetables,  in  any  respect  similar  to  those 
which  exist  upon  the  earth.  Our  idea  of  infinity  differs 
from  most  other  ideas  of  the  class  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred it,  only  in  this  respect ;  that  its  inadequacy  is 
occasioned  by  the  fact,  that  the  subject  is  beyond  the 
grasp  of  our  faculties;  while  the  inadequacy  of  most 
other  ideas  seems  to  arise  from  the  deficiency  of  our 
means  of  information.  But  this  is  a  difference  which 
does  not  in  any  degree  affect  the  nature  of  the  proposi- 
tions made  concerning  it,  so  as  to  distinguish  them  from 
other  propositions  relating  to  inadequate  ideas. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  we  have  no  conception  of 
omniscience ;  and  yet  that  we  make  propositions  con- 
cerning it,  which  have  a  meaning  and  a  very  important 
one.  I  answer  that  they  have  not  only  an  important, 
but  a  perfectly  intelligible  meaning  ;  and  that  this  sub- 
ject is  of  a  similar  kind  to  many  others,  of  the  nature  and 
relations  of  which  the  understanding  has  distinct  ideas, 
though  they  are  subjects  of  which  the  imagination  can- 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  117 

not  form  distinct  conceptions.  Fix  on  any  particular 
object  of  knowledge,  and  I  can  conceive,  in  every  sense 
of  the  word,  that  this  should  be  known  to  God.  But 
when  these  objects  are  multiplied  till  they  become  infi- 
nite, or  when  they  are  multiplied  beyond  very  narrow 
limits,  my  imagination  fails  and  is  altogether  confounded. 
But  the  same  is  the  case  with  regard  to  much  humbler 
subjects.  No  ideas  can  be  more  definite,  considered  as 
objects  of  the  understanding,  than  those  which  relate  to 
number  and  quantity  ;  yet  it  is  principally  collective  and 
aggregate  ideas  involving  the  notion  of  great  numbers 
or  vast  quantity,  that  the  imagination  is  thus  unable  to 
embrace.  When  1  am  told  that  there  are  more  than 
six  hundred  millions  of  inhabitants  upon  the  earth,  I 
understand  the  proposition  as  perfectly,  as  when  I  am 
told  that  there  are  six  individuals  in  a  certain  room. 
But  of  the  latter  my  imagination  can  form  a  distinct 
conception,  of  the  former  it  cannot.  I  have  no  images 
in  my  mind  which  correspond  in  any  considerable  degree 
to  the  immense  number  of  individuals  mentioned  ;  or 
to  that  vast  mass  of  matter  with  all  its  various  modifica- 
tions which  constitutes  the  earth.  Still  less  can  one 
form  distinct  images  of  what  astronomy  has  made  known 
to  us  respecting  the  universe.  But  who  will  pretend 
that  man  cannot  comprehend  the  truths  which  man  has 
discovered  ?  We  need  not,  however,  go  so  far  for  exam- 
ples. I  can  form  no  image  of  a  figure  with  twenty  equal 
sides  —  n0ne  which  shall  distinguish  it  from  a  similar 
figure  of  nineteen  or  of  twenty-one.  But  I  am  surely 
able  to  comprehend  propositions  respecting  such  a  figure 
with  twenty  sides  ;  and  I  have  a  very  clear  idea  of  it 
as  an  object  of  the  understanding.     The  fact  therefore 


118  ON    A  FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

that  our  imaginations  cannot  conceive  of  omniscience, 
has  no  bearing  to  prove  that  our  reason  cannot  compre- 
hend the  propositions  which  we  make  concerning  it. 
When  indeed  we  regard  omniscience  as  infinite  knowl- 
edge, then  our  ideas  respecting  it,  however  clear,  must  be 
inadequate.  But,  as  I  have  just  shown,  propositions 
relating  to  inadequate  ideas  may  be  altogether  intelligi- 
ble. 

Language  then  cannot  be  formed  into  propositions 
having  a  meaning,  which  meaning  is  not,  in  itself  con- 
sidered, fully  to  be  comprehended.  This  is  merely 
saying  in  other  terms,  that  the  human  mind  is  capable 
of  comprehending  the  ideas  of  the  human  mind,  for  no 
other  ideas  are  associated  with,  or  can  be  expressed  by 
language.  What  then  is  the  character  of  those  proposi- 
tions, said  to  be  derived  from  the  Scriptures,  which  are 
called  incomprehensible ;  and  which,  it  is  affirmed,  express 
mysteries  above  human  reason  ?  I  answer  that  so  far  as  they 
have  a  meaning,  they  are  intelligible  ;  and  that  many  of 
them,  are  in  fact,  propositions  which  are  perfectly  intelli- 
gible. When  I  am  told  that  the  same  being  is  both  God 
and  man,  I  recognise,  as  I  have  before  said,*  a  very  in- 
telligible though  a  very  absurd  proposition,  that  is,  I  know 
well  all  the  senses  which  the  words  admit.  When  it  is 
affirmed  that  "  the  Father  is  God,  and  the  Son  is  God, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  God  ;  And  yet  there  are  not  three 
Gods  but  one  God  ; "  no  words  can  more  clearly  convey 
any  meaning,  than  those  propositions  express  the  mean- 
ing, that  there  are  three  existences  of  whom  the  attri- 
butes of  God  may  be  predicated,  and  yet  that  there  is  only 

*  See  p.  18. 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  119 

one  existence  of  whom  the  attributes  of  God  may  be 
predicated.  But  this  is  not  an  incomprehensible  mystery ' 
it  is  plain  nonsense. 

It  seems  to  me  in  one  respect,  a  most  futile,  and  in 
another,  a  most  irreverent  sort  of  discussion,  to  inquire, 
what  would  be,  or  what  ought  to  be  our  state  of  mind, 
if  such  propositions  were  found  in  revelation  ;  or  had 
been  taught  us  by  any  being  performing  miracles  in  evi- 
dence of  his  mission  from  God.  It  is  a  thing  impos- 
sible, and  not  to  be  imagined.  When  we  have  once 
settled  the  real  nature  of  those  propositions,  all  contro- 
versy about  their  making  a  part  of  Christianity,  is  at  an 
end ;  unless  indeed  we  urge  this  controversy  not  as 
Christians,  but  as  unbelievers. 

The  propositions,  then,  of  which  we  speak  are  alto- 
gether intelligible,  and  are  not  mysteries.  It  is  only  in 
violation  of  that  fundamental  rule  of  criticism,  which 
continually  prevents  us  from  misunderstanding  the  words 
of  other  books  in  an  irrational  or  absurd  meaning,  that 
any  support  has  been  found  for  them  in  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament.  These  writings  have  been  ex- 
plained in  a  manner,  in  which  if  any  other  work  were 
explained,  we  should  think  that  its  author  was  regard- 
ed by  his  expositor  as  destitute  of  common  sense  ; 
unless  we  ascribed  this  character  to  the  expositor  him- 
self. It  may  give  us  some  idea  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  misinterpretation  of  the  Scriptures  has  been  carried, 
and  of  the  desree  to  which  the  religion  of  Christians  has 
been  corrupted,  to  recollect  that  the  creed  attributed  to 
Athanasius,  but  which  is  in  fact,  a  spurious  work  of 
some  unknown  author,  which  Athanasius  himself  would 
have  regarded  with  abhorrence,  a  creed  which   seems 


120  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR 

to  have  been  formed  in  a  delirium  of  folly,  was  for 
ages  the  professed  faith  of  the  whole  Western  Church ; 
and  is  still  the  professed  faith  of  a  great  portion  of 
Protestants.  Nor  is  this  all,  nor  the  worst.  The 
Athanasian  creed  !  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  !  They 
have  a  rank  odor  of  "  the  holy  and  apostolic  court 
of  the  Inquisition."  Persecution,  torture,  murder,  all 
that  is  malignant  in  bigotry,  and  all  that  is  loathsome  in 
hypocrisy,  have  followed  in  their  train.  And  who 
have  been  the  victims  ?  They  have  been  those  who 
have  denied  the  truth  of  doctrines,  which,  from  the 
very  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  it  was  impossible 
that  their  persecutors  should  have  believed. 

What  I  have  last  said,  leads  me  to  observe,  that 
these  propositions,  though,  considered  in  themselves, 
they  may  have  one  or  more  distinct  meanings,  yet 
have  no  meaning  in  the  mind  of  him  who  proposes 
them  as  religious  truths.  The  words  cannot  be  under- 
stood in  any  sense  which  he  will  acknowledge  to  be 
what  he  intends  to  express.  He  may  have  obscure, 
unsettled,  and  irrational  notions,  which  appear  to  him 
to  answer  in  some  sort  to  the  proposition  affirmed ;  but 
he  can  have  no  belief  that  really  corresponds  to  it ;  for 
though  men  may,  and  often  do,  believe  contradictory 
propositions  which  they  have  never  compared  together, 
yet  no  man  can  believe  an  obvious  contradiction. 
While  he  is  maintaining  these  propositions,  he  may, 
perhaps,  hold  a  doctrine  which  might  properly  be  ex- 
pressed in  different  words ;  and  which  does  not  in  fact 
differ  from  the  doctrine  of  those  to  whom  he  fancies 
himself  most  opposed.  But  whatever  he  does  in  fact 
believe,   that   he  may    express    distinctly  and  fully,  in 


CONCERNING  LANGUAGE.  121 

words  which  carry  no  contradiction  upon  their  face. 
The  obscurity  of  the  subject  cannot  be  made  a  plea  for 
the  want  of  the  utmost  propriety  and  perspicuity  of 
language ;  for  it  is  not  the  subject  which  he  is  required 
to  explain,  but  only  his  own  belief  concerning  it.  Bat 
what  one  man  believes  may  be  made  perfectly  intelligi- 
ble to  another  of  equal  capacity  and  information. 

Archbishop  Tiliotson  said  of  the  Athanasian  creed, 
that  he  wished  the  church  of  England  "  were  well  rid 
of  it."  There  are  other  parts  of  her  service  which  it  is 
even  more  desirable  that  church  should  be  well  rid 
of.  Familiarity  may  reconcile  us  to  what  is  most  offen- 
sive. But  let  us  imagine  it  as  possible  that  one  should 
be  ignorant  of  the  errors  prevailing  anions;  Christians, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  penetrated  with  just  conceptions 
of  the  Divinity.  With  what  inexpressible  astonishment 
and  horror,  would  he  listen  for  the  first  time  to  an 
assembly  of  Christian  worshippers,  thus  addressing  their 
God  ; 

"By  the  mystery  of  thy  holy  incarnation,  by  thy 
holy  nativity  and  circumcision,  by  thy  baptism,  fasting, 
and  temptation,  —  Good  Lord  deliver  us. 

"  By  thine  agony  and  bloody  sweat,  by  thy  cross  and 
passion,  by  thy  precious  death  and  burial,  by  thy  glo- 
rious   resurrection    and   ascension, Good    Lord 

deliver  us." 

How  many  join  in  these  petitions  with  an  intelligent 
belief  of  the  propositions  implied  in  them  ?  I  answer, 
Not  one  ;  for  when  understood,  they  cannot  be  believed. 
How  many  fancy  that  they  believe  them,  having  some 
obscure  notions,  which  they  think  answer  to  what  is  in- 
11 


122  ON    A    FUNDAMENTAL    ERROR. 

tended  ?  Certainly  not  a  majority  of  those  listeners  who 
have  at  all  exercised  their  reason  upon  the  subject. 
But  the  doctrines  implied  are  not  doctrines  of  the 
church  of  England  alone.  Other  churches  and  sects 
are  equally  responsible  for  their  promulgation.  And 
what  must  we  think  of  the  public  sanction  thus  given 
to  such  representations  of  God  and  Christianity  ?  What, 
in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  will  be  the  effect 
upon  the  religious  sentiments  of  men,  if  absurdities  so 
revolting  are  presented  to  their  minds  as  essential  doc- 
trines of  our  faith  ?  If  there  be  any  honor  due  to  God, 
if  Christianity  be  not  a  mere  vulgar  superstition,  if  there 
be  any  worth  in  religion,  if  any  respect  is  to  be  paid  to 
that  reason  which  God  gave  us  when  he  formed  us  in 
his  own  likeness,  if  any  concern  is  to  be  felt  for  man  who 
has  been  insulted  and  degraded,  it  is  a  matter  of  the 
most  serious  importance,  that  this  solemn  mockery  of  all 
that  is  most  venerable,  and  most  essential  to  human 
happiness,  should  cease. 


SECTION  IX. 

EXPLANATIONS    OF    PARTICULAR    PASSAGES    OF    THE    NEW 
TESTAMENT,    ADDUCED    BY    TRINITARIANS. 

1  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  principal  passa- 
ges urged  by  Trinitarians.  I  do  this  not  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  they  do  not  support  their 
doctrines  —  that  point,  I  trust,  is  already  settled  — but 
in  order  to  assist  those  who  may  wish  to  attain  a  correct 
notion  of  their  meaning,  and  particularly  such  as  are 
familiar  only  with  the  Trinitarian  application  of  them. 
Most  of  them  present  more  or  less  difficulty  to  a  modern 
reader  ;  otherwise  they  could  not,  with  any  appearance 
of  reason,  have  been  perverted  to  the  support  of  such 
doctrines  ;  and  one  may  reasonably  desire  to  know  how 
they  are  probably  to  be  understood. 

But  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  case  is  the  same 
with  some  of  these  as  with  many  other  passages  in  the 
New  Testament.  We  may  confidently  reject  a  particu- 
lar sense,  as  not  having  been  intended  by  the  speaker  or 
writer,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we  doubt  whether  we 
have  ascertained  his  true  meaning.  Of  different  expo- 
sitions we  may  sometimes  hesitate  which  to  prefer,  or 
question  whether  any  one  be  correct,  though  no  other 
that  seems  preferable  occur  to  us.  In  the  study  of  ancient 
authors,  we  must  often  content  ourselves  with  an  approxi- 


124         EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

mation  to  the  thoughts  intended  to  be  expressed  ;  and 
for  the  most  part  have  not  a  full  and  clear  view  of  all 
that  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer.  It  would 
require  a  master}'  which  none  can  attain  over  the  whole 
power  of  an  ancient  language  as  used  by  different  indi- 
viduals, and  an  intimacy  which  none  can  acquire  with 
all  the  circumstances  affecting  the  conceptions  and  feel- 
ings of  an  ancient  writer  and  his  contemporaries,  to  de- 
termine in  every  case  the  exact  force  and  bearing  of  his 
words.  Our  knowledge  is  not  un frequently  so  imper- 
fect, that  we  are  unable  fully  to  estimate  the  relative 
importance  of  the  different  considerations  which  may 
incline  us  to  adopt  one  meaning  or  another.  The  ex- 
planations, therefore,  of  some  of  the  passages  to  be 
examined  may  be  more  or  less  probable  or  accurate, 
without  in  any  degree  affecting  the  force  of  the  preced- 
ing arguments.  However  much  those  who  reject  the 
Trinitarian  exposition  of  certain  words  may  differ  among 
themselves  as  to  their  true  meaning  ;  there  is,  in  conse- 
quence, as  little  reason  for  assenting  to  the  Trinitarian 
exposition,  as  is  furnished  by  the  differences  among 
Protestants  for  adopting  the  creed  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  or  the  differences  among  Christians  for  becom- 
ing an  unbeliever.  An  equal  diversity  of  opinion  has 
existed  among  interpreters  concerning  the  meaning  of 
many  passages  not  particularly  obnoxious  to  controversy. 
Nor  is  this  variety  of  explanation  to  be  supposed  peculiar 
to  the  New  Testament.  In  proportion  to  the  attention 
which  has  been  paid  to  the  ancient  philosophers,  to 
Plato  and  Aristotle,  for  example,  there  has  been  a  simi 
lar  want  of  agreement  concerning  their  doctrines  and 
sentiments.     It  may  be  worth  while  to  illustrate  what 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         125 

has  been  said,  and  to  show  the  difficulty  that  may  exist 
in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words,  even  when  the 
discussion  excites  no  prejudice  or  party  feehn°-,  by 
attending  to  a  few  of  the  first  declarations  of  our  Saviour 
which  it  is  probable  many  readers  pass  over  with  scarce- 
ly a  question  as  to  their  sense. 

"  Reform  yourselves  ;  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
at  hand."  #  The  Common  Version,  instead  of  "  Re- 
form yourselves,"  has  "  Repent."  To  correct  this 
error,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  a  knowledge  of 
the  proper  sense  of  the  original  word.  But  what  was 
intended  by  the  words  '  kingdom  of  Heaven '  as  used  by 
Christ ;  and  how  were  they  understood  by  the  Jews, 
his  contemporaries,  when  first  uttered  ?  Both  questions 
are  important.  The  Jews  had  expected  that  their 
Messiah  would  come  to  establish  a  temporal  kingdom ; 
and  the  idea  of  a  temporal  kingdom  was  suggested  to 
their  minds  by  those  words  when  they  first  heard  them. 
The  fact  concerning  their  expectations  is  ascertained  by  a 
process  of  investigation  and  reasoning.  But  such  a 
kingdom  was  not  intended  by  our  Saviour.  Under  com- 
mon circumstances,  we  endeavour  to  use  words  in  that 
sense  in  which  they  will  at  once  be  understood  by  our 
hearers.  But  we  learn  from  an  examination  of  the 
Gospels,  that  Christ  employed  terms,  familiar  to  his  hear- 
ers, in  new  senses,  and  left  his  meaning  to  be  gradually 
ascertained  and  settled,  as  the  minds  of  his  disciples 
might  open  to  the  truth.  What  then  was  his  meaning  ? 
This  is  a  question  to  which,  I  think,  many  readers  may 
find  it  more  difficult  to  return  a  clear  and  precise  answer, 

*  Matthew  iv.  17. 
11* 


126        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

than  it  appears  to  be  at  first  thought.  He  who  will  look 
into  the  commentators  may  perceive  how  indefinitely 
and  inaccurately  it  is  liable  to  be  understood.  For  my- 
self, I  conceive  him  to  have  intended  by  the  '  kingdom 
of  Heaven,'  or  in  other  words,  '  the  kingdom  of  God,' 
that  state  of  things  in  which  men  should  recognise  the 
authority  of  God  as  the  supreme  lawgiver,  and  submit 
themselves  to  his  laws,  as  human  subjects  to  those  of  a 
human  government.  This  I  suppose  to  be  the  radical 
idea  of  the  term  as  used  by  him,  an  idea  which  is  to 
be  regarded  under  various  relations,  is  united  with  differ- 
ent accessory  thoughts,  and  suggests  different  associa- 
tions, according  to  the  various  connexions  in  which  it  is 
presented. 

"  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit ;  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  "# — that  is,  they  will  enjoy  the 
blessings  which  God  confers  upon  the  subjects  of  his 
kingdom,  upon  those  who  obey  his  laws.  But  are  they 
blessed  for  what  they  are,  or  for  the  peculiar  advantages 
which  they  enjoy  for  becoming  what  they  ought  to  be? 
Is  the  blessing  absolute  and  universal  ?  Or  does  it  refer 
only  to  the  favorable  circumstances  of  the  class  spoken 
of  ?  Or  is  it  confined  to  some  particular  individuals  of 
that  class  ?  That  these  are  not  idle  questions  may 
appear  from  the  words  which  St.  Luke  ascribes  to 
Christ,  "Blessed  are  ye  poor";  the  qualification  "in 
spirit  "  being  omitted  ;  "for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  "  f  which  we  cannot  understand  as  referring 
without  exception  to  the  whole  class  of  the  poor.  The 
words  given  by  St.   Matthew  have  been  by  some  critics 

*  Matth.  v.  3.  t  Luke  vi.  20. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    127 

so  constructed  as  to  correspond  to  those  of  St.  Luke.  * 
Thus  Wetstein  understands  them  as  addressed  particu- 
larly to  Christ's  poor  disciples,  and  as  meaning  Bless- 
ed in  the  view  of  the  Spirit,  Blessed  in  the  sight  of  God, 
are  the  poor,  that  is,  ye  poor.  It  would  detain  us  too 
long,  to  enter  into  the  reasons  for  which,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  this  interpretation  is  to  be  rejected.  Let  us 
attend,  then,  to  some  other  expositions.  Many  com- 
mentators of  the  Romish  church  understand  by  the 
'  poor  in  spirit,'  those  who  voluntarily  submit  to  poverty. 
Among  Protestants  Whitby  and  others  understand  '  men 
of  a  truly  humble  and  lowly  spirit.'  Paley,  apparently 
led  astray  by  the  sound  of  the  words  in  the  Common 
Version,  supposes  our  Saviour  to  declare  that '  the  poor- 
spirited  are  blessed  ' ;  and  has,  in  consequence,  misrepre- 
sented the  character  of  Christian,  that  is,  of  true  mo- 
rality, j"  We  may,  with  some  reason,  suppose  Christ  to 
have  meant  that,  in  the  existing  circumstances  of  the 
Jews,  the  poor  were  far  more  likely  than  the  rich  to 
have  the  dispositions,  which  would  lead  them  to  become 
his  followers  ;  and  that  in  consequence  he  pronounced 
those  blessed  who  had  the  spirit  of  the  poor.  But  I 
think  it  most  probable  that  his  meaning  was  still  different. 
The  word  used  in  the  original  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  that  which  denotes  simply  the  want  of  wealth.  It 
implies  destitution,  and  was  used  to  denote  such  as  lived 
by  charity.  Looking  around  him  upon  the  multitude,  he 
saw  perhaps  many  who  had  no  earthly  goods  ;  and  there 
stood  near  him  the  few   disciples   who  had  at   that  time 


*  By  connecting   ru  Tvtvft&ri  with  [taM^iou 

t  See  his  Evidences  of  Christianity.  Part  II.  Ch.  2. 


123        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

left  all  to  follow  him.  Borrowing,  as  was  usual  with 
him,  a  figure  from  present  objects,  he  speaks  of  that 
poverty  which  is  not  in  external  circumstances  ;  but 
the  poverty  of  the  mind,  the  destitution  felt  within. 
The  meaning  of  his  words,  I  believe,  was;  Blessed  are 
such  as  feel  that  they  are  destitute  of  all  things;  and  he 
referred  to  such  as,  free  from  the  high  pretensions  and 
spiritual  pride  of  the  generality  of  the  Jews,  might  feel 
that  as  Jews  they  had  no  claims  upon  God,  might  recog- 
nise their  own  deficiencies  in  goodness,  and  be  sensible 
how  much  was  wanting  to  their  true  happiness.  We 
cannot,  perhaps,  approximate  nearer  at  once  to  the  sense 
and  the  expression  of  the  original,  than  by  rendering 
it,  Blessed  are  they  whose  poverty  is  of  the  spirit. 

Let  us  go  on  a  little  further.  "  Blessed  are  the  mourn- 
ers for  they  shall  be  comforted."  *  Does  this  intend 
those  who  deny  themselves  the  blessings  of  life  and  en- 
dure voluntary  penance,  as  some  Catholics  explain  the 
passage  ?  You  will  say  not.  Does  it  mean  those  who 
mourn  for  their  sins,  as  many  Protestant  commentators 
tell  us  ?  I  think  otherwise.  The  purpose  of  our  Saviour 
was,  I  believe,  simply  to  announce,  that  his  religion 
brought  blessed  consolation  to  all  who  mourned. 

"  Blessed  are  the  meek  ;  for  they  shall  inherit  the 
earth."  So  the  next  words  are  rendered  in  the  Com- 
mon Version.  I  will  not  go  over  the  different  meanings 
that  have  been  assigned  to  them,  but  will  only  ask  my 
reader,  if  he  have  not  particularly  attended  to  the  subject, 
in  what  sense,  he  has  understood  them  ?  The  rendering 
should  be,  "  Blessed  are  the  mild,  for  they  shall  inherit 

*M;itth.  v.  4. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    129 

the  land  "  ;  that  is,  "  the  promised  land."  The  pas- 
sage cannot  be  understood  without  attention  to  the 
conceptions  of  the  Jews.  They  believed,  that  if  they 
obeyed  God,  they  should  remain  in  possession  of  "  the 
promised  land "  ;  if  they  disobeyed  him,  that  they 
should  be  removed  from  it,  and  scattered  among  other 
nations.  Hence  '  the  inheriting  of  the  land  '  was  in 
their  minds  but  another  name  for  the  enjoying  of  God's 
favor.  In  this  associated  and  figurative  sense  the  terms 
were  used  by  Christ.  His  meaning  was,  literally,  Blessed 
are  the  mild,  for  they  shall  enjoy  the  favor  of  God.  In 
the  Psalm  (xxxvii.  11.)  from  which  he  borrowed  the 
words,  they  are,  probably,  to  be  understood  literally. 

These  examples  may  serve  in  some  measure  to  show, 
that  it  is  not  always  easy  to  determine  the  meaning  even 
of  passages  which  may  seem  at  first  view  to  present 
little  difficulty.  If,  therefore,  we  may  hesitate  about 
the  true  sense  of  those  quoted  by  Trinitarians,  this  cir- 
cumstance will  afford  no  ground  for  hesitation  in  reject- 
ing the  Trinitarian  sense.  We  must  not  assign  an  ab- 
surd meaning  to  a  passage,  because  we  are  unable  to 
satisfy  ourselves  about  the  meaning  intended.  He 
would  reason  very  ill,  who,  because  he  was  unable  to 
satisfy  himself  as  to  what  was  meant  by  our  Saviour, 
when  he  spoke  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood, 
should,  on  that  account,  adopt  the  Roman  Catholic 
exposition  of  his  words. 

In  what  follows,  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to  passages  of 
the  New  Testament.  If  the  doctrines  of  Trinitarians  were 
not  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  it  would  be  a  su- 
perfluous labor  to  examine  the  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which   have  been  represented  as  containing 


130        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

indications  of  them.  There  are  arguments  so  futile  that 
one  may  be  excused  from  remarking  upon  them.  At 
the  present  day,  it  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  prove, 
that  the  writer  of  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  was  not 
a  Trinitarian  ;  or  that  there  is  no  evidence  for  the  doc- 
trine in  the  words  of  Isaiah,  (vi.  3.)  '  Holy,  holy,  holy 
is  the  Lord  of  Hosts '  ;  though,  according  to  Dr.  Wil- 
liam Lowth,  a  standard  commentator  on  the  Prophets, 
"  The  Christian  church  hath  always  thought  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  blessed  Trinity  was  implied  in  this  repe- 
tition." Another  expositor  of  equal  note,  Bishop  Pat- 
rick, tells  us,  that  "  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers  think 
there  is  a  plain  intimation  of  the  Trinity  in  these  words, 
'  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  ; '  "  yet  it  cannot  be 
expected  that  one  should  go  into  an  explanation  of 
this  proposition,  for  the  sake  of  removing  any  difficulty  in 
comprehending  it.  The  passage  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  is  most  relied  upon  by  Trinitarians,  is  found  in 
Isaiah  ix.  6.  It  has  been  often  explained.  There  is, 
I  think,  no  evidence  that  it  relates  to  Christ ;  and  if  it 
do,  the  common  version  of  it  is  incorrect.  It  may  be 
thus  rendered : 

"  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
Unto  us  a  son  is  given  ; 

And  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  ; 
And  he  shall  be  called  wonderful, 
Counsellor,  mighty  potentate, 
Everlasting  father,  prince  of  peace."* 


*  I  quote  the  translation  given  by  the  Rev.  George  R.  Noyes  in 
his  Sermon  upon  Isaiah  ix.  6.  lately  published,  and  refer  to  the  same 
discourse  for  its  explanation  and  defence.  I  do  so  the  more  readily, 
as  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  expressing  my  respect  for  that  able 
and  accurate  scholar,  and  my  strong  interest  in  those  labors  by  which 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.         131 

I  proceed  then  to  remark  upon  the  principal  passages 
adduced  by  Trinitarians  professedly  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  support  of  their  doctrines  ;  and  in  doing  so 
shall  distribute  them  into  several  different  classes,  ac- 
cording to  the  different  errors  which  have  led  to  their 
misuse.  The  sources  of  misinterpretation  and  mistake 
will  thus  appear,  and  in  regard  to  the  texts  of  less  im- 
portance which  I  shall  omit  to  notice,  it  will  in  general 
be  easy  to  determine  to  what  head  they  are  to  be  referred 
and  in  what  manner  understood. 


CLASS  I. 

To  the  first  class  we  may  refer  Interpolated  and 
Corrupted  Passages.     Such  are  the  following. 

Acts  xx.  23.  Here  in  the  Common  Version,  we 
find  these  words ;  "  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which 
he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Instead  of 
'  the  church  of  God,'  the  true  reading  is  '  the  church  of 
the  Lord.' 

1  Timothy  iii.  16.  "  God  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh."  The  reading  Otog  (God)  is  spurious;  but  it  has 
been  doubted  whether  we  should  read  og  {who  or  he 
who)  or  o  (ivhich). 

1  John  v.  7.     The  famous  text  of  the  three  heaven- 


he  is  contributing  so  much  toward  a  better  understanding  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures. 


132         EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

ly  ivitntsses.  The  value  that  has  been  formerly  attach- 
ed to  this  passage,  though  unquestionably  interpolated, 
may  be  estimated  from  the  obstinacy  with  which  it  has 
been  contended  for,  from  its  still  retaining  its  place  as 
genuine  in  the  editions  of  the  Common  Version,  and  even 
in  editions  of  the  original  professedly  formed  on  the  Text 
of  Griesbach,  from  the  lingering  glances  cast  toward  it* 
by  such  writers  as  Bishop  Middleton,  and  from  the 
pertinacity  with  which  the  more  ignorant  or  bigoted  class 
of  controversialists  continue  to  quote  and  even  defend  it. 
After  all  that  has  been  written  concerning  these  texts, 
no  one  of  them  requires  particular  notice  except  that 
from  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy.  Of  this  the  true 
reading  and  proper  explanation  are  both  doubtful.  In 
respect  to  the  reading,  the  question  is,  as  I  have  mention- 
ed, between  og  (who  or  he  ivho)  and  o  (which).  Gries- 
bach gives  the  preference  to  the  former,  but  it  has  been 
shown,  I  think,  that  he  is  incorrect  in  the  citation  of  his 
authorities.  *     The  original  reading,  I   believe  to  have 


*  See  Laurence's  Remarks  upon  Griesbach's  Classification  of  Man- 
uscripts, pp  71  — 83.  According  to  Griesbach,  of  the  Versions 
(which  as  regards  this  text  afford  by  far  the  most  important  evidence 
to  be  adduced),  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglot,  and  the  Slavonic  alone, 
support  the  reading  0£oj ;  in  all  the  others,  a  pronoun  is  used  answer- 
ing to  Ss  or  to  o.  That  is  to  say,  the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic,  and  the  Phi- 
loxenian Syriac  in  the  margin,  express  the  pronoun  o's',  the  Vulgate, 
and  the  older  Latin  versions,  3  quod  ;  and  the  Peshito  or  vulgar  Syr- 
iac, the  Philoxenian  Syriac  in  the  text,  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  the  iEthi- 
opic,  and  the  Armenian,  use  a  pronoun  which  maybe  translated  in- 
differently '  who,'    or  '  which.' 

But  according  to  Dr.  Laurence,  whose  statements  I  see  no  reason 
to  distrust,  "the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic,  and  the  Philoxenian  versions  do 
not  necessarily  read  2j.  but  most  probably  o,"  and  'the  Peshito  or 
vulgar  Syriac,  the  Erpenian  Arabic,  and  the  ^Ethiopic,  do  not  indif- 
ferently read  of  or  o    but  indisputably  J'."     "The    Armenian   reads 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    133 

been  o  (which).  For  this  the  external  evidence,  when 
fairly  adjusted,  seems  greatly  to  preponderate  ;  and  it 
may  have  been  altered  by  transcribers  first  into  6V  and 
afterwards  into  Otog,  in  consequence  of  the  theological 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  according  to  which  the 
mystery  spoken  of  was  Christ,  —  an  interpretation  that 
appears  to  have  been  given  it  at  an  early  period.  But 
the  passage,  I  believe,  has  no  reference  to  Christ  per- 
sonally. 

The  words  translated  "  mystery  of  godliness,"  as  if 
purposely  to  obscure  the  sense,  should  be  rendered 
"  the  new  doctrine  of  piety,"  or  "  concerning  piety  "  ; 
and  in  order  to  avoid  an  awkward  collocation  of  words  in 
English,  we  may  connect  the  epithet  "  great,"  with  the 
substantives  "  pillar  and  foundation  "  ;  an  arrangement 
which,  though  contrary  to  the  construction  of  the  origi- 
nal, sufficiently  expresses  the  sense.  The  following 
rendering,  then,  I  believe,  gives  the  meaning  of  the 
Apostle. 

"  I  thus  write  to  you,  hoping  to  come  to  you  short- 
ly ;  but  should  I  be  delayed,  that  you  may  know  how 
you  ought  to  conduct  yourself  in  the  house  of  God,  that 

neither  2?  nor  2,  but,  in  conjunction  with  the  Byzantine  text,  3so$.-' 
Of  all  these  versions,  therefore,  Griesbach's  account  is  incorrect;  and 
the  number  and  importance  of  those  which  favor  the  reading  2,  taken 
in  connexion  with  the  fact  of  its  having  been,  from  the  first,  the 
reading  of  the  whole  Western  church,  produce  a  preponderating 
weight  of  evidence  in  its  favor. 

In  regard  to  the  Philoxenian  version  Dr.  Laurence,  as  may  ap- 
pear from  what  is  quoted,  expresses  himself  with  some  obscurity. 
But,  1  presume,  his  opinion  was,  that  both  in  the  text,  and  in  the 
margin,  it  probably  reads  3.  See  White's  note  in  his  edition  of  this 
version. 

12 


134   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

is,  the  assembly  of  the  living  God.  Beyond  doubt,  the 
great  pillar  and  foundation  of  the  true  religion,  is  the 
new  doctrine  concerning  piety,  which  has  been  made 
known  in  human  weakness,  proved  true  by  divine  power, 
while  angels  were  looking  on,  which  has  been  proclaimed 
to  the  Gentiles,  believed  in  the  world,  and  has  obtained  a 
glorious  reception." 

In  the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter  of  this  Epistle, 
St.  Paul  speaks  earnestly,  and  at  length,  of  the  prayers  to 
be  offered  by  Christians  in  their  public  assemblies.     The 
main    object  of  their  thus   associating  together  was  to 
excite  their  feelings  of  piety  by  mutual  sympathy.     Then 
follow  directions  respecting  the  well-ordering  of  a  Chris- 
tian community  or  church,  and  the  proper  character  of 
its  officers  ;  and,  in  conclusion,  the    Apostle  recurs  to 
the  great   distinctive   character  of  Christianity,  its  new 
doctrine   of  piety  to   God,    that    state   of   mind  which 
their  assemblies  were   particularly  intended  to  cherish. 
Thus  we  have  a  connected  train  of  thought.     But  if  the 
conclusion  of  the  passage  be  explained  of  the  manifesta- 
tion of  Christ,  or  of  God,  in  the  flesh,  a  new  subject  is 
abruptly  introduced,  having  but  a  remote  connexion  with 
what  precedes  ;  and  one  which  we  perceive  no  reason  for 
the  Apostle's  adverting  to  in  this  place. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        135 


CLASS   II. 

Passages  relating  to   Christ  which  have  been  mistrans- 
lated. 

To  this  class  belongs  Philippians  ii.  5.  seqq.  Here 
the  Common  Version  makes  the  Apostle  say  of 
Christ,  that  he  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God."  This  has  been  considered  a  decisive  argument, 
that  Christ  is  God ;  though  it  is  an  absurdity  to  say 
of  any  being,  that  he  '  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  himself.'  Perhaps  no  text,  however,  has 
been  more  frequently  quoted  or  referred  to.  #  But  it 
now  seems  to  be  generally  conceded  that  the  words  have 
been  mistranslated.  In  the  verses  that  follow,  the  verb- 
al rendering  of  iv  ftogqtjj  -dsov,  is  '  in  the  form  of  God,' 
and  that  of  /.ioQ(p>)v  dovlov,  'the  form  of  a  servant.'  But 
as  these  phrases  do  not  correspond  to  our  modes  of  ex- 
pression, they  can  hardly  convey  a  distinct  meaning  to 
most  readers.  '  To  be  in  the  form  of  another,'  as  here 
used,  means  i  to  appear  as  another,'  '  to  be  as  another.' 
In  a  translation  it  is  better  to  substitute  one  of  these 
equivalent,  but  more  intelligible  phrases.  The  whole 
passage  may  be  thus  rendered. 

"  Let  the  same  disposition  [  Let   the   same  humility 
and  benevolence]  be  in  you  which  was  in  Jesus  Christ, 

*  Thus  Dr.  Watts  in  one  of  his  hymns.     (Book  II.  h.  51.) 
11  Yet  there  is  one  of  human  frame, 
Jesus  arrayed  in  flesh  and  blood, 
Thinks  it  no  robbery  to  claim 
A  full  equality  with  God. 
Their  glory  shines  with  equal  beams,"  &c. 


136 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


who  being  as  God  did  not  think  that  his  equality  with 
God  was  to  be  eagerly  retained  ;  but  divested  himself  of 
it,  and  made  himself  as  a  servant  and  was  as  men  are, 
and  being  in  the  common  condition  of  man,  humbled 
himself,  and  was  submissive,  even  to  death,  the  death  of 
the  cross." 

Christ  was  i  in  the  form  of  God,'  or  i  the  image  of 
God/  or  '  as  God  '  ;  he  was  '  like  God,'  or  he  was  '  equal 
with  God '  (the  latter  words  being  correctly  under- 
stood) ;  because  he  was  a  minister  in  the  hands  of  God, 
wholly  under  his  direction  ;  because  his  words  were  the 
words  of  God,  his  miracles,  the  works  of  the  Father  who 
sent  him,  and  his  authority  as  a  teacher  and  legislator, 
that  of  the  Almighty,  not  human  but  divine.  Yet  not- 
withstanding that  he  bore  the  high  character  of  God's  mes- 
senger and  representative  to  men,  with  all  the  powers 
connected  with  it,  he  was  not  eager  to  display  that 
character,  or  exercise  those  powers,  for  the  sake  of  any 
personal  advantage,  or  of  assuming  any  rank  or  splen- 
dor corresponding  to  his  preeminence  over  all  other  men. 
"  Being  rich,  for  our  sakes  he  became  poor."  He 
divested  himself  as  it  were  of  his  powers,  lowered  him- 
self to  the  condition  of  common  men,  lived  as  they  live, 
exposed  to  their  deprivations  and  sufferings,  and  volun- 
tarily, as  if  weak  as  they,  submitted  to  an  ignominious 
and  torturing  death.  —  When  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ 
made  himself  as  a  servant,  these  words  are  illustrated  by 
those  which  he  himself  used,  while  inculcating,  like  the 
Apostle,  the  virtues  of  humility  and  benevolence,  with  a 
like  reference  to  his  own  example  ;  "  The  Son  of  Man 
came   not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve."  *      It  is  in  imi- 

¥  Matthew  xx.  28. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        137 

tation  of  this  example,  that  he  directs  him,  "  who 
would  be  greatest  among  his  disciples,  to  become  the 
servant  of  all." 

I  proceed  to  another  example.  It  is  the  mistransla- 
tion of  the  word  alwvss,  by  the  English  word  "  worlds," 
in  the  commencement  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  * 
For  giving  this  sense  to  the  original  term,  there  is  not,  I 
think,  any  authority  to  be  found  either  in  Hellenistic  or 
classic  Greek.  It  was  not  so  used  till  long  after  the 
composition  of  this  Epistle.  In  the  theological  dialect 
of  Christians,  this  sense  was  assigned  to  it  in  reference 
to  the  present  passage  and  to  another  in  this  Epistle 
(Ch.  xi.  3.)  ;  and  the  corresponding  Latin  word  specu- 
lum acquired  the  same  meaning.  The  Greek  word 
alo3v  was  used  to  denote  a  space  of  time  of  considerable 
length,  leaving  its  precise  limits  undefined.  Hence  it 
denotes,  secondarily,  the  state  of  things  existing  during 
such  a  period.  In  this  sense  it  often  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  use  the  word  age  in  a  like  signification, 
employing  it  to  denote  the  men  of  a  particular  period, 
considered  in  reference  to  their  circumstances  and  char- 
acter, as  when  we  speak  of  the  '  manners  of  an  age,' 
c  the  learning  of  an  age,'  he.  So,  likewise,  the  word  time 
is  used,  though  by  an  idiom  of  our  language,  rather  in 
the  plural  than  the  singular,  as  in  the  phrase,  "the  times 

*  There  can  be  no  reason  for  not  explaining  the  passages  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  I  believe  to  have  been  misunderstood, 
though  I  do  not  regard  the  Epistle  as  the  work  of  St.  Paul  or  any 
other  Apostle.  My  reasons  for  this  opinion  1  have  formerly  giver, 
in  the  Christian  Examiner  (Vols.  iv.  v.  vi.)  in  a  series  of  articles 
which  I  may,  perhaps,  at  some  time  republish. 

12* 


138    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  the  Messiah."  Shakspeare,  however,  says  in  the  sin- 
gular, "  the  time  is  out  of  joint,"  meaning  '  the  present 
state  of  things  is  in  disorder.' 

In  the  passage  under  consideration,  ccUavtq,  "  ages," 
most  probably,  I  think,  denotes  the  "different  states  of 
things  which,  in  successive  periods,  would  result  from 
Christianity."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  it  is 
used,  I  suppose,  in  the  same  sense,  Ch.  iii.  v.  11.  y.aia 
noo&ioiv  tw!'  alcorcjv  r\v  tnoirioBV  ev  Xqioto)  bjoov  tw  avgm 
iiIawv,  "  conformably  to  a  disposition  of  the  ages  which 
he  has  made  by  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  "  ;  *  and  proba- 
bly also  in  the  same  Epistle  ( ii.  7.)  where  the  Apostle 
speaks  of  the  favor  of  God  that  will  be  manifested  "  in 
the  ages  to  come."  In  these  passages,  as  well  as  in  that 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  reference,  I  presume, 
extends  beyond  this  life  to  the  future  condition  of  Chris- 
tians, to  "  the  ages  "  after  death,  f  Thus,  then,  I  would 
render  and  explain  the  meaning  of  the  writer  to  the  He- 
brews in  the  first  five  verses  of  this  Epistle. 

"God,  who  at  different  times  and  in  different  ways 
formerly  spoke  to  our  fathers  by  the  prophets,  has  at 
last  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed 
heir  of  all,  J  through  whom  also  he   has  given   form  to 

*  Not,  as  in  the  Common  Version,  "  According  to  the  eternal  pur- 
pose, which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

t  In  Hebrews  xi.  3.  alum  is  again  translated  u  worlds."  Here  we 
may  render  thus ;  "  Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  ages  have 
been  so  ordered  by  the  power  of  God,  that  what  is  seen  had  not  its 
origin  in  what  was  conspicuous."  The  meaning  of  the  writer,  I 
conceive  to  have  been,  that  through  faith  we  believe,  that  Christiani- 
ty with  all  its  results  is  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of  God,  not  hav- 
ing had  its  origin  in  any  state  of  things  previously  existing. 

X  We  may  suppose  that,  the  preceding  dispensations  of  God  being 
intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  Christianity,  Christ  is  represented 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        139 

the  ages,  *  who  being  a  reflection  of  his  glory,  and  an 
image  of  his  perfections,  and  ruling  all  things  with  au- 
thority from  him,f  after  having  cleansed  us  from  our 
sins  by  himself  alone,  %  hath  sat  down  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high ;  being  as  much  greater  than  the 
angels,  as  the  title  which  he  has  obtained  is  preeminent 
above  theirs.  For  to  which  of  the  angels  did  God  ever 
say,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  made  thee  so. 
And  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be 
to  me  a  Son." 

Another  passage  which  may  be  mentioned  is  the  con- 
clusion of  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John,  thus  rendered  in 
the  Common  Version : 

"  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may  know 
him  that  is  true  ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even 
in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and 
eternal  life.      Little  children  keep  yourselves  from  idols." 

According  to  the  Trinitarian  exposition  of  these  words, 
the  true  God  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  two  persons, 
who  are  so  clearly  distinguished  by  St.   John,   are  one 

as  "  heir  of  all  "  which  had  been  accomplished  by  them;  or  the  figu- 
rative term  heir  may  be  used  with  reference  to  the  title  of  Son  im- 
mediately before  given  to  Christ,  and  "  heir  of  all"  may  be  equiv- 
alent to  "  Lord  of  all,"  denoting  that  Christ  has  been  appointed 
"  head  over  all  "  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 

*  Or,  in  other  words,  '  has  given  form  to  what  exists  and  is  to  ex- 
ist,' as  the  results  of  Christianity. 

t  Read  alrov,  and  not  aurou,  as  is  suggested,  and  almost  required,  by 
the  occurrence  of  avrou  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  by  the  use  of 
iocvrou  immediately  after  without  the  insertion  of  x.a.1. 

X  That  is,  without  the  intervention  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish 
law. 


140    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

being.  But  the  appearance  of  a  Trinitarian  meaning  is 
the  result  of  a  false  translation,  particularly  of  the  im- 
proper insertion  of  the  word  "  even."  The  passage  may 
be  thus  rendered.  Its  sense  may  be  made  clearer  by 
going  back  a  little,  and  beginning  at  verse   18. 

"  We  know  that  whoever  is  born  of  God  avoids  sin  ; 
the  child  of  God  guards  himself,  and  the  Wicked  One 
cannot  touch  him.  We  are  assured  that  we  are  of  God, 
and  that  the  whole  world  is  subject  to  the  Wicked  One. 
And  we  are  assured  that  the  Son  of  God  has  come,  and 
has  given  us  understanding  to  know  Him  who  is  True. 
And  we  are  with  Him  who  is  True  through  his  Son  Je- 
sus Christ.  He  is  the  True  God,  and  eternal  life. 
Children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols." 

The  meaning  is  that  He  with  whom  Christians  are, 
He  who  is  True,  is  the  True  God,  and  the  giver  of 
eternal  life.  In  the  former  part  of  the  passage  St.  John 
expresses  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  personality  and 
power  of  Satan.  To  him,  the  Wicked  One,  he  regard- 
ed the  heathen  world  as  subject ;  while  believers  were 
through  Christ  with  Him  who  is  True,  the  True  God. 
They  were,  therefore,  to  keep  themselves  from  idols. 

Should  it  be  said  that  these  ideas  are  not  happily  ex- 
pressed, I  answer,  it  is  evident  that  the  author  of  this 
Epistle  was  as  unskilful  a  writer  as  we  might  expect  to 
find  one,  originally  a  Galilean  fisherman ;  and  should  it 
be  brought  as  an  objection  against  his  being  an  inspired 
Apostle,  that  he  adopted  a  popular  error  of  his  country- 
men respecting  the  existence  and  power  of  a  being,  the 
supposed  author  of  evil,  I  would  ask  in  return,  how,  if  he 
were  not  an  inspired  Apostle,  one  thus  exposed  in  com- 
mon with  others  to  the  errors  of  his  age,  rose  so  high 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    141 

above  his  contemporaries  in  his  comprehension  of  the 
essential  truths  of  religion  ? 

o 

With  the  passage  quoted  from  St.  John,  may  be  com- 
pared the  words  of  his  master,  which  he  had  previously 
recorded  ;  "  And  this  is  life  eternal,  to  know  that  thou 
art  the  only  true  God,  and  that  Jesus  whom  thou  hast 
sent  is  the  Messiah."  *  After  having  recorded  these 
words,  with  what  amazement  would  he  have  been  seized, 
had  it  been  revealed  to  him  that  an  epistle  of  his  own 
would  be  interpolated  in  one  place,  and  its  meaning 
perverted  in  another,  for  the  sake  of  proving  a  doctrine, 
about  to  be  generally  received  by  Christians,  that  he 
who  thus  addressed  the  only  true  God,  that  he  whom 
God  had  sent,  was  himself  the  only  true  God. 

To  the  class  of  mistranslations  are  likewise  to  be  re- 
ferred those  passages  which,  on  account  of  the  omission 
of  the  Greek  article,  have  been  so  rendered  as  to  apply 
to  Christ  the  title  '  God.'  These,  however,  are  in  this 
particular  correctly  translated  in  the  Common  Version. 
As  the  question  is  purely  a  critical  one,  I  will  place  the 
remarks   to  be  made  upon  it  in  a  note,  f 

*  John  xvii.  3. 

t  The  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ  founded  upon  the  omission 

of  the  Greek  article  was  revived  and  brought  into  notice  in  the  last 

century  by  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.     He  applied  it  to  eight  texts  which 

will  be  hereafter  mentioned.     The  last  words  of  Ephesians  v.  5.  may 

afford  an  example   of  the  construction  on  which  the  argument  is 

founded ; 

lv  T'/j  £x<rx\tla  rod  Itgurrou  xa)  Qiov. 

From  the  article  being  inserted  before  X^ittow  and  omitted  before 
Qiovy  Mr.  Sharp  infers  that  both  names  relate  to  the  same  person, 
and  renders,  "  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  our  God."     Conformably  to. 


142        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

To  the  class  of  mistranslations  might  strictly  be  referred 
a  very  large  part  of  all  the  passages  adduced  by  Trinita- 
rians, as  will  appear  from  what  follows ;  but  my  purpose 

the  manner  in  which  he  understands  it,  it  might  be  rendered,  "  in 
the  kingdom  of  him  who  is  Christ  and  God."  The  proper  transla- 
tion I  suppose  to  be  that  of  the  Common  Version,  "  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  and  of  God,"  or  "  in  the   kingdom  of  the  Messiah  and  of 

God." 

The  argument  of  Sharp  is  defended  by  Bishop   Middleton  in  his 

Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article.     By  attending  to  the  rule  laid  down 

by  him  with  its  limitations  and  exceptions,  we  shall  be  able  to  judge 

of  its  applicability  to  the  passages  in  question.     His  rule  is  this; 

"  When  two  or  more  attributives,  joined  by  a  copulative  or  copula- 
tives, are  assumed  of  [relate  to]  the  same  person  or  thing,  before  the 
first  attributive  the  article  is  inserted,  before  the  remaining  ones  it  is 
omitted."  pp.  79,  80. 

By  attributives,  he  understands  adjectives,  participles,  and  nouns, 
which  are  significant  of  character,  relation,  and  dignity. 

The  limitations  and  exceptions  to  the  rule  stated  by  him  are  as 
follows. 

I.  There  is  no  similar  rule  respecting  "  names  of  substances  con- 
sidered as  substances."  Thus  we  may  say  h  xidog  xat  XiVT^>  without 
repeating  the  article  before  %gvtros,  though  we  speak  of  two  different 
substances.  The  reason  of  this  limitation  of  the  rule  is  stated  to  be 
that  "  distinct  real  essences  cannot  be  conceived  to  beloncr  to  the 
same  thing;  "  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  be  two  different  substances.  —  In  this  case,  then,  it  appears 
that  the  article  is  not  repeated,  because  its  repetition  is  not  necessa- 
ry to  prevent  ambiguity.  This  is  the  true  principle  which  accounts 
for  all  the  limitations  and  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  are  stated  by 
Bishop  Middleton  and  others  It  is  mentioned  thus  early,  that  the 
principle  may  be  kept  in  mind ;  and  its  truth  may  be  remarked  in  the 
other  cases  of  limitation  or  of  exception  to  be  quoted. 

II.  "No  similar  rule  applies  to  proper  names.  "The  reason," 
says  Middleton,  "  is  evident  at  once  ;  for  it  is  impossible  that  John 
and  Thomas,  the  names  of  two  distinct  persons,  should  be  predicated 
of  an  individual."  p.  86.  This  remark  is  not  to  the  purpose;  for 
the  same  individual  may  have  two  names.  The  true  reason  for  this 
limitation  is,  that  proper  names,  when  those  of  the  same  individual, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    143 

under  the  present  head  has  been  to  remark  only  on  a 
few  in  which  the  error  is  more  gross  than  usual,  or  the 
misuse  of  which  has  principally  arisen  from   their  being 

are  not  connected  by  a  copulative  or  copulatives,  and  therefore  that 
when  they  are  thus  connected  no  ambiguity  arises  from  the  omission 
of  the  article. 

III.  "  Nouns/'  says  Middleton,  "  which  are  the  names  of  abstract 
ideas,  are  also  excluded;  for  as  Locke  has  well  observed,  'Every 
distinct  abstract  idea  is  a  distinct  essence,  and  the  names  which  stand 
for  such  distinct  ideas  are  the  names  of  things  essentially  different.'  " 
Ibid.  It  would  therefore,  he  reasons,  be  contradictory  to  suppose 
that  any  quality  were  at  once  ivrtigix  and  uvruib*iuo*ix>  But  the  names 
of  abstract  ideas  are  used  to  denote  personal  qualities,  and  the  same 
personal  qualities,  as  they  are  viewed  under  different  aspects,  may 
be  denoted  by  different  names.  The  reason  assigned  by  Middleton 
is  therefore  without  force.  The  true  reason  for  the  limitation  is,  that 
usually  no  ambiguity  arises  from  the  omission  of  the  article  before 
words  of  the  class  mentioned. 

IV.  The  rule,  it  is  further  conceded,  is  not  of  universal  application 
as  it  respects  Plurals  ;  for,  says  Middleton,  u  Though  one  individual 
may  act,  and  frequently  does  act,  in  several  capacities,  it  is  not  like- 
ly that  a  multitude  of  individuals  should  all  of  them  act  in  the  same 
several  capacities :  and,  by  the  extreme  improbability  that  they 
should  be  represented  as  so  acting,  we  may  be  forbidden  to  under- 
stand the  second  plural  attributive  of  the  persons  designed  in  the 
article  prefixed  to  the  first,  however  the  usage  in  the  singular  might 
seem  to  countenance  the  construction."  p.  90. 

V.  Lastly,  "we  find,"  he  says,  "in  very  many  instances,  not 
only  in  the  plural,  but  even  in  the  singular  number,  that  where  at- 
tributives are  in  their  nature  absolutely  incompatible,  i.  e.  where  the 
application  of  the  rule  would  involve  a  contradiction  in  terms,  there 
the  first  attributive  only  has  the  article,  the  perspicuity  of  the  passage 
not  requiring  th    rule  to  be  accurately  observed."  p.  92. 

Having  thus  laid  down  the  rule  with  its  limitations  and  excep- 
tions, Bishop  Middleton  applies  it  to  some  of  the  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  adduced  by  Mr.  Sharp  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
These  were  Acts  xx.  28  (supposing  the  true  reading  to  be  rod  kv^U» 
xa.)  Qitv).  Ephes.  v.  5.  2  Thess.  i.  12.  1  Tim.  v.  21  (if  xveiov  should 
be  retained  in  the  text).  2  Tim.  iv.  1  (if  we  read  rod  Otod  kou  xvoUv). 


144   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

incorrectly  rendered.  As  may  readily  be  supposed,  the 
different  classes  of  texts  that  I  have  formed  run  into  each 
other ;  the  misinterpretation  of  a  passage  not  unfrequently 
having  its  origin  in  more  than  one  cause. 

Titus  ii.  13.  2  Peter  i.  1.  Jude  4  (supposing  0eov  to  belong  to  the 
text).  In  four  of  these  eight  texts,  the  reading  adopted  to  bring 
them  within  the  rule  is  probably  spurious,  as  may  be  seen  by  refer- 
ing  to  Griesbach;  and  they  are  in  consequence  either  given  up,  or 
not  strongly  insisted  upon,  by  Middleton.  In  one  of  the  remaining, 
2  Thess.  i.  12,  the  reading  is  xark  rw  x^-V  <ro"  ®^ou  riftaJv  xa.)  xv/siov 
'Irxrov  ~X.oir<rotJ.  Of  this  Middleton  is  "  disposed  to  think  that  it  affords 
no  certain  evidence  in  favor  of  Mr.  Sharp,"  because  he  "  believes 
that  kvpios  in  the  form  of  Kvgios'Introuf  Xgitrros  became  as  a  title  so  in- 
corporated with  the  proper  name  as  to  be  subject  to  the  same  law." 
pp.  554.  564.  The  three  remaining  texts  are  those  on  which  he  prin- 
cipally relies. 

By  the  application  of  the  rule  to  the  passages  last  mentioned,  it 
is  inferred  that  Christ  is  called  God,  and  the  great  God ;  and  it  is 
affirmed  that  the  rule  requires  us  to  understand  these  titles  as  applied 
to  him.     The  general  answer  to  this  reasoning  is  as  follows. 

It  appears  by  comparing  the  rule  with  its  exceptions  and  limita- 
tions that  it,  in  fact,  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  this  ;  that  when 
substantives,  adjectives,  or  participles  are  connected  together  by  a  cop- 
ulative or  copulatives,  if  the  first  have  the  article,  it  is  to  be  omitted 
before  those  which  follow,  when  they  relate  to  the  same  person  or 
thing;  and  is  to  be  inserted,  when  they  relate  to  different  persons  or 
things,  except  when  this  fact  is  sufficiently  determined  by  some 
% other  circumstance.  The  same  rule  exists  respecting  the  use  of  the 
definite  article  in  English. 

The  principle  of  exception  just  stated  is  evidently  that  which 
runs  through  all  the  limitations  and  exceptions  which  Middleton  has 
laid  down  and  exemplified,  and  is  in  itself  perfectly  reasonable. 
When,  from  any  other  circumstance,  it  may  be  clearly  understood 
that  different  persons  or  things  are  spoken  of,  then  the  insertion  or 
omission  of  the  article  is  a  matter  of  indifference. 

But  if  this  be  true,  no  argument  for  the  deity  of  Christ  can  be 
drawn  from  the  texts  adduced.  With  regard  to  this  doctrine,  the 
main  question  is,  whether  it  were  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
and  received  by  their  immediate  disciples.     Antitrinitarians  maintain 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        145 

CLASS  III, 

Passages  relating  to    God,  which  have  been  incorrectly 
applied  to  Christ. 

The  first  which  I  shall  mention  belongs  likewise  to 
the  head  of  mistranslations.  It  is  Romans  ix.  5.  thus 
rendered  in  the  Common  Version  ;  "  Whose  are  the 
fathers,  and  of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ 
came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.     Amen. 

It  must,  one  would  think,  strike  a  Trinitarian,  who 
maintains  the  correctness  of  this  construction  and  ren- 
dering, as  a  very  singular  fact,  that  the  title  of  "  God 
over  all  blessed  for  ever,"  which  is  nowhere  else  given 
to  Christ,  should  be  introduced  thus  incidentally,  and 
abruptly,  without  explanation  or  comment,  and  without 
any  use  being  made  of  the  doctrine.  The  supposed 
fact  appears  still  more  extraordinary  and  unaccountable, 
when  we  recollect  that  one  main  purpose  of  the    Epistle 

that  it  was  not ;  and  consequently  maintain  that  no  thought  of  it  was 
ever  entertained  by  the  Apostles  and  first  believers.  But  if  this  sup- 
position be  correct,  the  insertion  of  the  article  in  these  texts  was 
wholly  unnecessary.  No  ambiguity  could  result  from  its  omission. 
The  imagination  had  not  entered  the  minds  of  men  that  God  and 
Christ  were  the  same  person.  The  Apostles  in  writing,  and  their  con- 
verts in  reading,  the  passages  in  question,  could  have  no  more  con- 
ception of  one  person  only  being  understood,  in  consequence  of  the 
omission  of  the  article,  than  of  supposing  but  one  substance  to  be 
meant  by  the  terms  J  xidos  xa)  xgutro;,  on  account  of  the  omission  of 
the  article  before  xzutrb;-  These  texts  therefore  cannot  be  brought  to 
disprove  the  Antitrinitarian  supposition,  because  this  supposition 
must  be  proved  false,  before  these  texts  can  be  taken  from  the  excep- 
tion and  brought  under  the  operation  of  the  rule.  The  truth  of  the 
supposition  accounts  for  the  omission  of  the  article. 

13 


146        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

to  the  Romans  was  to  meet  the  prejudices  and  errors  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews  respecting  Christianity ;  and  that 
the  doctrine  which  the  Apostle  is  imagined  to  have  as- 
serted so  briefly  and  explicitly,  and  then  to  have  left 
without  attempting  to  clear  it  from  a  single  objection, 
must  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  obnoxious  to  them ; 
and  one,  therefore,  which  in  consistency  with  the  design 
of  the  Epistle,  required  the  fullest  illustration  and  de- 
fence. In  the  second  century,  Justin  Martyr,  though 
far  indeed  from  affirming  that  Christ  was  "  God  over 
all "  ;  maintained  that  he  was  "  another  god,"  the  Lo- 
gos of  the  Supreme.  In  the  Dialogue  which  he  repre- 
sents himself  as  having  held  with  an  unbelieving  Jew, 
Trypho,  in  defence  of  Christianity,  he  brings  forward 
views  and  arguments  similar  to  those  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  ;  but  in  addition  to  these  we  find  a  new 
topic,  the  deity  of  Christ,  occupying  a  great  part  of  the 
discussion.  If  the  doctrine  had  been  maintained  by  St. 
Paul,  as  it  was  by  Justin,  one  would  think  that  in  answer- 
ing the  objections  of  the  Jews,  it  would  have  been  as 
necessary  for  the  Apostle,  as  for  Justin,  to  explain  and 
defend  it.  The  sentiments  of  the  Jews  concerning  it, 
which  undoubtedly  would  have  been  as  strong  in  the 
time  of  St.  Paul  as  they  were  a  century  later,  appear 
from  the  words  which  Justin  ascribes  to  Trypho  ;  "  You 
undertake  to  prove  an  incredible  and  almost  impossi- 
ble thing  that  a  god  submitted  to  be  born  and  to  become 
a  man."  *  "  As  for  what  you  say,  that  this  Christ  ex- 
isted as  a  god  before  time  was,  and  afterwards  becoming 
a  man,   submitted   to  be  born,  and  that  he  was  born  out 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.   p.  283.  ed.  Thirlb. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    147 

of  the  common  course  of  nature,  it  seems  to  me  not  only 
paradoxical,  but  foolish."  *  "  All  we  [Jews],"  says 
Trypho  in  another  place,  "  expect  that  the  Messiah  will 
be  a  man  born  of  human  parents."  f  The  whole 
argument  of  St.  Paul  in  opposition  to  the  prejudices  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews  must  have  been  incomplete  and 
unsatisfactory,  if  he  asserted  this  "  incredible  and  almost 
impossible  "  doctrine  in  the  clause  of  a  sentence  without 
attempting  any  vindication  of  its  truth. 

The  passage  has,  I  believe,  no  bearing  whatever  upon 
the  doctrine,  which  it  has  been  adduced  to  prove.  The 
fact  is  well  known  that  the  present  pointing  of  the  New 
Testament  is  of  no  authority  ;  the  more  ancient  manu- 
scripts having  been  unpointed ;  and  the  points,  which 
we  now  find,  having  been  introduced  by  later  transcribers 
and  by  editors.  Let  any  one,  then,  turn  to  the  passage 
in  his  Greek  Testament,  and  put  a  dot  at  the  top  of  the 
line  (equivalent  to  a  semicolon)  after  odgxa  instead  of  a 
comma  as  at  present,  and  a  comma  after  ndrxuv,  and  he 
will  perceive  that  the  following  meaning  immediately 
results ;  "  He  who  was  over  all  was  God  blessed  for 
ever." 

"  He  who  was  over  all,"  that  is  over  all  which  has  just 
been  mentioned  by  the  Apostle.  The  rapidity  of  expres- 
sion in  the  original,  however,  does  not  fully  appear  in 
such  a  rendering  ;  because  in  our  language  we  are  obliged 
to  supply  the  ellipsis  of  the  substantive  verb.  It  may  be 
imitated,  however,  by  employing  the  participle  instead  of 
the  verb.    Doing  this,  I  will  give  what  seems  to  me  a  more 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  233. 
t  lb.  p.  235. 


148        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

correct  translation  of  the  passage,  and  of  its  context, 
than  that  of  the  Common  Version. 

—  "  My  brethren  ;  who  are  Israelites,  whose  was  the 
glory  of  being  adopted  as  sons,  whose  were  the  cove- 
nants, and  the  law,  and  the  service  of  the  temple,  and 
the  promises,  and  from  among  whom  the  Messiah  was 
to  be  born  ;  he  who  was  over  all  being  God  blessed 
for  ever.     Amen." 

This  conclusion,  as  every  one  must  perceive,  is  in  the 
highest  degree  proper  and  natural.  Among  the  privile- 
ges and  distinctions  of  the  Jews,  it  could  not  be  forgotten 
by  the  Apostle,  that  God  had  presided  over  all  their  con- 
cerns in  a  particular  manner.  With  regard  to  the  ellip- 
sis of  the  substantive  verb,  which  we  have  supposed, 
nothing  is  more  common.  In  the  five  verses  including 
the  verse  we  are  considering,  between  the  3d  and  9th, 
it  occurs  as  least  six  times.  * 

The  passage  was  at  an  early  period  applied  to  Christ, 
particularly  by  the  Latin  Fathers.  With  the  notions, 
however,  of  the  earlier  Christians,  respecting  the  inferi- 
ority of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  the  passage,  when  thus 
constructed,  presented  a  difficulty  as  well  as  an  argument. 
Hippolytus,  f  or  some  writer  under  that  name,  explains 
it  in  reference  to  the  declaration  of  Christ  thus  rendered 
in  the  Common  Version,  "  All  things  are  delivered  to 
me  of  the  Father  ;  "  conceiving  the  dominion  over  all 

*  The  following  texts,  to  which  many  others  might  be  added,  afford 
examples  of  a  similar  ambiguity  of  construction  in  the  writings  of 
St.  Paul  from  the  omission  of  the  substantive  verb.  Rom.  viii.  33,  34  ; 
X.  12.  1  Cor.  i.  26.  2  Cor.  hi.  14.  (^  a.vKKa.XvfrrofA.ivov  for  ttrn  ya£ 
firi  avaJcaXw-TTtf^iyov)-  2  Cor.  v.  5.  Ephes.  iv.  4.  comp.  5.  Coloss.  ii. 
17. 

t  Contra  Noetum.  §  vi.    Opp.  I.  237. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    149 

things  not  to  have  been  essentially  inherent  in  Christ  as 
properly  the  Supreme  God,  but  as  assigned  to  him  by 
the  Father.  It  was,  perhaps,  understood  in  a  similar 
manner  by  Novatian,  who  has  twice  quoted  the  pas- 
sage, but  who  clearly  did  not  believe  Christ  to  be  the 
Supreme  Being.  Tertullian  says  ;  "  We  never  speak 
of  two  Gods  or  two  Lords,  but  following  the  Apostle,  if 
the  Father  and  Son  are  to  be  named  together,  we  call 
the  Father,  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  Lord."  "  But 
when  speaking  of  Christ  alone,  I  may  call  him  God,  as 
does  the  same  Apostle  ;  Of  whom  is  Christ,  who  is  God 
over  all  blessed  for  ever.  For  speaking  of  a  ray  of  the 
sun  by  itself,  I  may  call  it  the  sun  ;  but  when  I  mention 
at  the  same  time  the  sun,  from  which  this  ray  proceeds, 
I  do  not  then  give  that  name  to  the  latter."  * 

But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  some  of  the  earlier  Fa- 
thers, especially  the  Greek  Fathers,  expressly  denied 
that  Christ  is  "  the  God  over  all."  This  title  was  ap- 
plied to  him  by  the  Sabellians,  and  was  considered  as  a 
distinguishing  mark  of  their  heresy.  There  is  no  one  of 
the  Fathers  more  eminent  than  Origen.  i:  Supposing," 
says  Origen  in  his  work  against  Celsus,  "  that  some 
among  the  multitude  of  believers,  likely  as  they  are  to 
have  differences  of  opinion,  rashly  suppose  that  the 
Saviour  is  the  God  over  all ;  yet  we  do  not,  for  we  be- 
lieve  him  when  he  said,    '  The  Father  who  sent  me   is 

*"  Solum  autem  Christum  potero  deumdicere,  sicut  idem  Aposto- 
lus, Ex  quibus  Chrislus  ;  qui  est,  inquit,  deus  super  omnia.  benedicttlS 
in  cevum  omne.  Nam  et  radium  solis  seorsum,  solem  vocabo ;  solem 
autem  nominans  cujus  est  radius,  non  statim  et  radium  solem  ap- 
pellabo."  —  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  13. 

13* 


150   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

greater  than  I.' "  *  Even  after  the  Nicene  council, 
Eusebius,  in  writing  against  Marcellus,  says :  "  As 
Marcellus  thinks,  He  who  was  bora  of  the  holy  virgin, 
and  clothed  in  flesh,  who  dwelt  among  men,  and  suffer- 
ed what  had  been  foretold,  and  died  for  our  sins,  was 
the  very  God  over  all ;  for  daring  to  say  which,  the 
church  of  God  numbered  Sabellius  among  atheists  and 
blasphemers."  f  Now  it  is  incredible  that  the  text  in 
question  should  have  been  overlooked.  But  the  early 
Fathers  in  making  these,  and  a  multitude  of  other  simi- 
lar declarations,  concerning  the  inferiority  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father,  never  advert  to  it.  It  evidently  fol- 
lows from  this,  that  they  had  not  the  same  conception, 
as  modern  Trinitarians  have,  of  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage. They  had  read  the  words  of  the  Apostle  in  which 
he  speaks  of  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  blessed  for  ever  more  "  ;  J  and  the  mys- 
tery of  the  Trinity  being  as  yet  but  ill  understood,  they 
had  not  made  such  an  advance  in  Orthodoxy  as  to  be- 
lieve, that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  same  being  as  his  God 
and  Father. 

We  pass  to  Hebrews  i.  10  — 12.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  give  the  words  at  length.     This  passage  belongs  to 

*  Origen.  cont.  Cels.  Lib.  vm.  §  16.  Opp.  1.752. 

t  Euseb.  Eccles.  Theol.  II.  4.  This,  and  the  passage  from  Origen, 
are  given  by  Wetstein  in  his  critical  remarks  on  the  text,  with  other 
authorities  to  the  same  purpose.  See  also  Whitby,  Disquisitiones 
Modestae,  passim,  but  particularly  pp.26,  27;  p.  122;  and  p.  197.  Ed. 
secund.  —  For  placing  a  period  after  #•*£*«,  Griesbach  quotes  the  au» 
thority  of  "  many  Fathers  who  denied  that  Christ  could  be  called 
'the  God  over  all.'" 

t  2  Cor.  xi.  31. 


EXPLANATIONS    Or    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  151 

the  present  class.  The  words  were  originally  addressed 
by  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  cii.  25.)  not  to  Christ,  but  to  God, 
and  are  so  addressed  by  the  author  of  the  Epistle.  * 

*  The  following  are  the  remarks  of  Emlyn.  "  Here  we  may  ob- 
serve, that  the  tenth  verse,  And  thou  Lord  fyc.  (though  it  is  a  new  ci- 
tation) is  not  prefaced  with,  And,  to  the  Son  he  saith,  as  ver.  8.  or 
with  an  again,  as  ver.  5,  G.  and  so  chap.  ii.  13.  but  barely,  And  thou 
Lord.  Now  the  God  last  mentioned  was  Christ's  God,  who  had 
anointed  him;  and  the  author  thereupon  breaks  out  into  the  celebra- 
tion of  this  God's  power,  and  especially  his  unchangeable  duration  ; 
which  he  dwells  upon,  as  what  he  principally  cites  the  text  for;  in 
OTder,  I  conceive,  to  prove  the  stability  of  the  Son's  kingdom,  be- 
fore spoken  of:  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever  ;  God,  thy  God, 
has  anointed  thee  ;  and  thou,  Lord,  i.  e.  thou  who  hast  promised  him 
such  a  throne,  art  he  icho  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  made 
the  heavens,  which,  though  of  long  and  permanent  duration,  yet  will 
perish;  but  thou  remaincst,  thou  art  the  same,  thy  years  shall  not  fail. 
So  that  it  seems  to  be  a  declaration  of  God's  immutability  made  here, 
to  ascertain  the  durableness  of  Christ's  kingdom,  before  mentioned  ; 
and  the  rather  so,  because  this  passage  had  been  used  originally  for  the 
same  purpose  in  the  102d  Psalm,  viz.  to  infer  thence  this  conclusion, 
ver.  ult.  The  children  of  thy  servants  shall  continue,  and  their  seed  be 
established  before  thee.  In  like  manner  it  here  proves  the  So?i's  throne 
should  be  established  for  ever  and  ever,  by  the  same  argument,  viz. 
by  God's  immutability  ;  and  so  was  very  pertinently  alleged  of  God, 
without  being  applied  to  the  Son  ;  to  show  how  able  his  God,  who 
had  anointed  him,  was  to  make  good  and  maintain  what  he  had  grant- 
ed him,  viz.  a  durable  kingdom  for  ever.'* —  Emlyn's  Examination  of 
Dr.  BenneVs  New  Theory  of  the  Trinity.  Tracts,  Vol.  II.  pp.  203, 
204.     London.  1731. 

Beside  the  purpose  pointed  out  by  Emlyn,  the  author  of  the  Epis- 
tle may  have  had  another  in  view,  which  was  to  declare,  that  while 
the  throne  of  Christ  being  upheld  by  God  should  endure  for  ever ;  the 
heavens,  the  local  habitation,  as  they  were  considered,  of  angels, 
should,  on  the  contrary,  perish,  b*  rolled  up  as  a  garment  and 
changed. 


152        EXPLANATIONS     OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


CLASS  IV. 

Passages  that  might  be  considered  as  referring  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  supposing  it  capable  of  proof 
and  proved,  but  which  in  themselves  present  no  ap- 
pearance of  any  proof  or  intimation  of  it. 

Such  is  the  case  with  some  of  those  urged  with  the 
most  confidence ;  as  the  form  of  baptism  recorded  in 
Matthew  (xxviii.  19.),  and  thus  rendered  in  the  Com- 
mon Version : 

"  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Here,  as  in  many  other  passages,  the  error  and  ob- 
scurity of  the  version  have  favored  the  imposition  of  a 
sense  upon  the  passage  which  the  original  does  not 
suggest.  c  To  baptize  in  the  name  of  another '  is  to 
baptize  by  authority  from  him,  as  his  representative. 
But  this  every  scholar  knows  is  not  the  sense  of  our 
Saviour's  direction.  The  Greek  word  rendered  l  name' 
is  in  this  passage,  as  often  in  the  Scriptures,  redundant. 
It  is  used  pleonastically,  by  an  idiom  of  the  Hebraistic 
Greek,  in  which  the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament 
are  written.  We  have  not  the  same  turn  of  expression 
in  our  own  language.  In  the  original,  it  adds  nothing 
to  the  sense  of  the  passage.  When  literally  rendered 
into  another  language  in  which  the  same  idiom  does  not 
exist,  it  tends  only  to  obscure  the  meaning.  It  should 
not  therefore  appear  in  a  translation  into  English. 

But  even  if  the  term  "name  "  be  retained,  there  is  no 
ground  for  the  rendering,  "  baptizing  them  in  the  name." 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         153 

The  Greek  preposition  ek  should  here  be  rendered  to. 
The  whole  passage  may  be  thus  translated. 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations  ; 
baptizing  them  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the 
holy  spirit." 

The  meaning  of  which  is,  Go  and  make  converts  of 
men  of  all  nations,  dedicating  them  by  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism, through  which  they  are  to  make  a  solemn  public 
profession  of  their  faith,  to  the  worship  of  the  Father, 
the  only  true  God,  to  the  religion  which  he  has  taught  men 
by  his  Son,  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  those  holy  influences 
and  spiritual  blessings  which  accompany  its  reception. 

One  may  easily  understand  how  this  passage  has  ap- 
peared to  Trinitarians  to  convey  so  clear  a  notice  of  the 
Trinity,  since  they  have  adopted  its  terms  as  technical 
in  their  theology,  and  imposed  upon  them  new  and  ar- 
bitrary senses,  which  have  become  strongly  associated 
with  the  words,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  But  he 
who  contends  that  any  proof  of  the  doctrine  is  to  be 
derived  from  it,  must  proceed  altogether  upon  assump- 
tions obviously  false.     Let  us  state  them  clearly. 

In  the  first  place,  to  prove  the  personality  of  the  holy 
spirit  from  this  passage,  it  must  either  be  assumed  ; 

That  when  three  objects  are  mentioned  together  in  a 
sentence  and  two  of  them  are  persons,  the  third  must  be 
a  person  also :  That  is,  the  Father  and  Son  being  per- 
sons, the  holy  spirit  must  be  a  person  also : 

Or,  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  holy  spirit,  and 
the  deity  of  the  Son,  may  all  be  rested  upon  the  as- 
sumption ; 

That  baptism  was  a  rite  of  such  a  character,  that  to 
be  baptized  "  in  the  name  of,"  or  "  to  the  name  of," 


154      EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

or  "  to "  any  person  or  object,  necessarily  implies, 
that  such  person  or  object  possesses  the  character  oF 
God: 

Or,  it  may  be  assumed  ; 

That  when  three  persons  or  objects  are  thus  mention- 
ed together,  they  must  be  all  of  equal  dignity,  so  that, 
in  the  present  case,  the  Father  being  God,  the  same 
character  must  also  belong  to  the  Son  and  holy  spirit. 

These  are  the  only  grounds  on  which  the  deity  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  holy  spirit,  can  be  inferred  from  the 
passage  before  us.  But  at  this  point  of  the  reasoning,  if 
we  have  arrived  at  any  doctrine,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
existence  of  three  Gods.  In  order,  therefore,  to  con- 
clude the  proof  of  the  Trinity  from  this  passage,  it  is 
necessary  further  to  assume  ; 

That  when  three  persons  are  thus  mentioned  togeth- 
er in  a  sentence,  they  must  be  regarded  as  constituting 
but  one  Being;. 

Such  is  the  nature  of  the  proof  to  be  derived  from  the 
passage  in  question,  concerning  which  I  find  the  follow- 
ing exclamation  : 

"  Audi  haec,  O  Ariane  et  Sociniane.  Ex  hoc  loco 
veteres  et  naturae  unitatem,  et  personarum  pluralitatem, 
in  Deo  colligebant." 

"  Hear  these  words,  O  Arian  and  Socinian.  From 
this  passage  the  ancients  inferred  both  the  unity  of  nature, 
and  the  plurality  of  persons,  in  God." 

Under  this  head  may  be  explained  the  title  "  Son  of 
God  "  as  applied  to  Christ ;  on  which  I  have  before  had 
occasion  to  remark.  *     The  Trinitarian  supposes  it  to  be 

*  See  p.  27, 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW     TESTAMENT.        155 

evidence  of  the  deity  of  Christ ;  because  as  the  son  of 
a  man  has  the  nature  of  a  man,  so  the  Son  of  God  must 
have  a  divine  nature. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ  involved  no  ab- 
surdity, the  title  in  question  might,  without  doubt,  be 
used  according  to  the  analogy  supposed  ;  but  the  proof 
of  the  doctrine  must  still  be  derived  from  other  sources. 
No  evidence  of  it  could  be  drawn  from  this  title  alone ; 
because  the  title  is  one  in  common  use,  and  its  signifi- 
cancy  in  every  other  application  of  it  is  wholly  differ- 
ent from  the  meaning  ascribed  to  it  by  Trinitarians 
when  applied  to  Christ.  For  this  entire  difference, 
they  must  necessarily  contend ;  and  in  doing  so  virtu- 
ally acknowledge  that  there  is  no  usage  to  justify  them 
in  understanding  the  title  in  the  sense  which  they  as- 
sign to  it,  and  consequently  that  no  inference  can  be 
drawn  from  this  title  alone  in  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ. 

Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  explaining  its  applica- 
tion to  our  Saviour.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (i.  5.)  quotes  the  words  which  God  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  represented  to  have  used  concern- 
ing Solomon,  as  applicable  to  Christ ;  "  I  will  be  to 
him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  By 
these  words  was  meant,  that  God  would  distinguish 
Solomon  with  peculiar  favors  ;  would  treat  him  as  a 
father  treats  a  son  ;  and  they  are  to  be  understood  in 
a  similar  manner  when  applied  to  Christ.  "  We  saw," 
says  St.  John  in  his  Gospel  (i.  14.)  "  his  glory,  glo- 
ry like  that  of  an  only  son  from  a  father  ; "  *  that  is, 


*  'fLfacKroi/xiSa  rnt  Vo^cli  ahrou,  Vo\ai  u;  pawyiiov;  tret^k  vmr^oi.      1  hese 
words  should  not  be  rendered  as  in  the  Common  Version,  "  We  be- 


156        EXPLANATIONS    OY    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

we  saw  the  glorious  powers  and  offices  conefrred  upon 
him,  by  which  he  was  distinguished  from  all  others,  as 
an  only  son  is  distinguished  by  his  father.  It  is  in 
reference  to  this  analogy  and  probably,  I  think,  to 
this  very  passage  in  his  Gospel,  that  St.  John  else- 
where calls  Christ  "  the  only  Son  of  God,"  a  title 
applied  to  him  by  no  other  writer  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. * 

But  the  title  was  also  familiarly  used  to  denote  those 
qualities  which  recommend  moral  beings  to  the  favor  of 
God  ;  those  which  bear  such  a  likeness  to  his  moral  at- 
tributes as  may  be  compared  with  the  likeness  which  a 
son  has  to  his  father  ;  those  which  constitute  one,  in  the 
Oriental  style,  to  be  of  the  family  of  God.  Thus  our 
Saviour  exhorts  his  disciples  to  do  good  to  their  enemies, 
that  they  may  be  "sons  of  their  Father  in  Heaven."  f 
Nor  is  this  use  of  the  term  confined  to  the  Scriptures. 
Philo  urges  him,  who  is  "  not  yet  worthy  to  be  called 
a  son  of  God  "  to  aim  at  higher  excellence.  J 

In  reference  to  both  these  analogies,  the  term  was 
preeminently  applicable  to  Christ ;  and  he  was  there- 
fore,  called  by  others,   and  by  himself,  "The  Son  of 

held  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."  To 
justify  this  rendering,  both  poyoytvovs  and  xctr^oj  should  have  the  arti- 
cle. 

•There  is  a  doubt  whether  the  words,  John  iii.  16  —  21,  in  which 
this  title  occurs,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  language  of  Christ  or  of 
the  Evangelist.  If  St.  John  intended  to  ascribe  them  to  Christ,  he 
has  probably  clothed  the  ideas  of  his  master  in  his  own  language  ; 
and  we  may  so  account  for  the  use  of  a  title  in  this  passage,  which 
Christ  never  elsewhere  applies  to  himself. 

t  Tim  rau  tar^li  vpuiy  Matthew  v.  45. 

X  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  Opp.  I.  427.  ed.  Mang. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  157 

God,"  the  article  being  used,   as  often,  to  denote  pre- 
eminence.* 

There  are  two  subjects,  that  of  Prayer  to  Christ,  and 
that  of  the  Preexistence  of  Christ,  each  involving  the 
consideration  of  several  particular  passages,  which  may 
properly  be  treated  under  the  present  head.  I  will  first 
speak 

Of  Prayer  to  Christ. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  Christ  is  God,  for  the 
supposed  reason,  that  prayers  were  addressed  to  him  by 
the  first  Christians.  But  the  fact,  if  admitted,  would 
afford  no  support  for  this  conclusion.  To  pray  is  to 
ask  a  favor.  In  a  religious  sense,  it  is  to  ask  a  favor  of 
an  invisible  and  superior  being.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  prayer,  which  renders  it  improper  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  a  being  inferior  to  God.  Whether  such 
address  be  proper  or  not,  must  depend  upon  other  con- 
siderations. In  itself  considered,  there  would  be  nothing 
more  inconsistent  with  the  great  principles  of  natural  re- 
ligion in  our  asking  a  favor  of  an  invisible  being,  an 
angel,  or  a  glorified  spirit,  than  in  our  asking  a  favor  of 
a  fellow  mortal.     For  any  thing  we  can  perceive,  God 

*  The  words  ascribed  (Luke  i.  39.)  to  the  angel  who  foretold  to 
Mary  the  birth  of  Christ,  are  sometimes  quoted  as  explanatory  of  the 
title  '  Son  of  God,'  with  reference  to  his  miraculous  conception.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  these  words  to  mean  :  "  He  shall  be  great ;  and  he 
shall  be  {not  shall  be  called)  a  son  of  the  Most  High  "  ;  xxkucrfcu  be- 
ing equivalent  to  Citat,  as  in  other  passages.  We  find  the  same  ex- 
pression in  Ps.  Ixxxii.  G.  In  v.  35,  $,},  rendered  in  the  Common 
Version  '  therefore,'  may  be  understood  as  meaning, '  whence  it  may 
be  inferred,'  '  conformably  to  which,'  '  so  that.' 


158    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

might  have  committed  the  immediate  government  of  our 
world,  of  this  little  particle  of  the  universe,  or  the  imme- 
diate superintendence  of  the  Christian  church,  to  some 
inferior  minister  of  his  power.  Such  a  being  might  thus 
have  become  an  object  of  prayer.  Nay,  in  consistency 
with  all  that  we  know  of  the  character  of  God,  there 
might  have  been  an  intercourse,  very  different  from  what 
now  exists,  between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  world. 
The  spirits  of  our  departed  friends  might  have  become 
our  guardian  angels,  with  power  to  confer  benefits  and  to 
answer  our  petitions.  Prayers  then  might  have  been 
addressed  to  them.  If,  therefore,  it  were  to  appear  that 
God  has  revealed  to  us  that  Christ  is  an  object  of 
prayer,  as  was  believed  by  Socinus  and  his  followers, 
this  would  afford  no  reason  for  concluding  that  Christ  is 
God.  What  follows  respecting  prayer  to  Christ,  is,  con- 
sequently, a  mere  digression  ;  but  a  digression  on  a  topic 
so  important  that  it  needs  no  excuse. 

Those,  at  the  present  day,  who  reject  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  believe  that  God  *  is  the  only  object  of 
prayer.  To  him  alone,  they  believe,  that  Christ  taught 
his  followers  to  pray  by  his  precepts  and  example.  He 
nowhere  enjoined  prayer  to  himself.  He  said  to  those  who 
had  been  most  dependent  on  his  guidance  and  support, 
in  reference  to  the  period  after  his  ascension  ;  "  Then 
ye  shall  ask  nothing  of  me."  f     And   though  the  sub- 

*  To  a  Trinitarian,  I  may  say,  that  I  use  the  term  '  God'  to  denote 
"  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

t  John  xvi  23-  The  words  \v  \xiim  t«  ii/^ipa,  rendered  "  in  that 
day  "  are  merely  equivalent  to  the  adverb  "  then."  The  time  intend- 
ed is  that  following  our  Saviour's  ascension,  when,  in  figurative 
language,  he  says  that  he  shall  be  with  his  Apostles  again,  not  refer- 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         159 

ject  of  prayer,  viewed  in  the  abstract,  may  appear  under 
the  aspect  just  presented  ;  yet  regarded  in  relation  to  the 
actual  character  and  condition  of  man,  we  may  perceive 
the  goodness  of  that  appointment  of  God  which  teaches 
us  to  direct  our  prayers  to  him  alone.  We  may  under- 
stand the  privilege  of  raising  our  undivided  thoughts  to 
our  God  and  Father,  and  reposing  our  whole  trust  in  him. 
Man  is  thus  brought  into  an  intimate  connexion  with  his 
Maker,  which  could  hardly  have  otherwise  existed. 

Of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  have 
been  supposed  to  favor  the  doctrine  of  prayer  to  Christ, 
the  first  that  may  be  noticed  is  his  own  declaration  to 
his  disciples  ;  "  Again  ;  I  tell  you  that  if  two  of  you  agree 
on  earth  concerning  every  thing  which  they  may  ask, 
their  prayers  will  be  granted  by  my  Father  in  heaven  ;  for 
where  two  or  three  are  assembled  in  my  cause,  there  am 
I  in  the  midst  of  them."  *  By  the  latter  words  our 
Saviour  did  not  mean  to  affirm,  that  he  would  be  present 
with  them  to  hear  their  prayers,  which  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  words  preceding,  in  which  he  refers  them 
to  his  Father  in  heaven,  as  him  who  would  grant  their 
requests.  His  purpose  was  to  declare,  that  the  designs, 
labors,  and  prayers  in  which  his   followers  might  unite 


ring  to  his  personal  presence,  but  to  his  presence  with  them  in  the 
power  and  blessings  of  his  gospel,  and  in  the  aid  afforded  them  by 
God  as  his  ministers. 

*  Matth.  xviii.  19,  20.  "  Concerning  every  thing  which  they  may 
ask;  *•»{«  rairit  *(*yp«r«t  ;  not,  *'  concerning  anything,"  as  in  the 
Common  Version.  The  object  of  Christ  in  the  discourse  from  which 
the  words  are  taken,  was  to  inculcate  upon  his  disciples  perfect  con- 
cord among  themselves,  and  an  entire  unity  of  feeling  and  purpose 
as  ministers  of  his  religion.  The  reference  is  to  those  prayers  which 
they  might  offer  as  his  ministers,  and  in  which  they  might  all  accord. 


160 


IXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 


for  the  promotion  of  his  cause  would  be  equally  blessed 
with  his  own.  It  would  be  as  if  he  were  praying  with 
them.  They  might  feel  the  same  confidence  that  his 
actual  presence  would  inspire. 

Another  passage  commonly  adduced  in  relation  to  this 
topic  has,  I  think,  no  bearing  upon  it.     It  is  the  address 
of  Stephen  to  Christ   at  his  martyrdom.  *     Upon  this 
occasion  Christ  is  represented   as  having  been   visibly 
present  to  Stephen.     The  prayer  of  the   martyr,  there- 
fore, that  he  would  receive  his  spirit,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  he  would  receive  him  to  himself,  is  of  no   force 
to  prove,  that  it  is  proper  to  offer  prayers  to  Christ  as  an 
invisible  being.     We  might  with  as  much  propriety  ad- 
duce in  support  of  this  proposition  the  requests  which 
were  addressed  to  him  when  conversant  among  men,  those 
for  instance,  in  which  his  miraculous  aid  was  implored. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  last  words  of  Stephen,  in 
which  he  prayed  for  his  murderers,  were  addressed  to 
Christ. 

St.  Paul,  in  his  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(xii.  8.),  speaking  of  "the  thorn  in  his  flesh," 
says  that  he  thrice  besought  the  Lord,  meaning,  I  think, 
Christ,  that  he  might  be  relieved  from  it.  Immediately 
before,  he  speaks  of  the  extraordinary  nature  of  the 
revelations  that  had  been  granted  him.  He  was  con- 
verted by  the  personal  interposition  of  Christ.  He  him- 
self mentions  a  subsequent  period  when  Christ  was  pres- 
ent with  him,  and  directed  his  conduct,  t  Considering 
the  peculiar  miraculous  intercourse  subsisting  between  him 
and  our  Lord,  his  addressing  a  request  to  him  cannot 

*  Acts  vii.  59.  j  Acts  xxii.  17.  seqq. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.         161 

be  considered  as  affording  any  example  or  authority  for 
prayer  to  Christ  under  ordinary  circumstances.  The 
request  of  Paul  may  have  been  offered  when  he  had  a 
miraculous  sense  or  perception  of  his  Master's  presence. 

We  have  indeed  sufficient  ground  for  believing,  gener- 
ally, that  after  our  Saviour's  removal  from  earth,  there 
still  continued  a  peculiar  connexion  between  him  and 
his  Apostles  and  first  followers ;  that  he  exercised  a 
miraculous  superintendence  over  their  concerns,  and 
held  miraculous  intercourse  with  them.  Of  the  nature 
and  extent  of  this  connexion  the  Apostles  were  probably 
ignorant,  having  never  been  enlightened  on  the  subject 
by  express  revelation.  The  facts  with  which  we  know 
them  to  have  been  acquainted  are  sufficient  to  account 
for  their  expressions  concerning  it,  in  the  very  few  pas- 
sages   that  may  be  supposed  to  relate  to  it. 

Among  these  may,  perhaps,  be  reckoned  the  passa- 
ges in  which  St.  Paul  expresses  his  wish,  that  the 
"  favor  of  Christ "  may  be  with  those  whom  he  ad- 
dresses. But  it  seems  to  me  most  probable,  that  by  the 
favor  of  Christ,  the  Apostle  means  principally,  if  not 
solely,  that  favor,  those  blessings,  of  which  Christ  was 
the  minister  to  man. 

The  only  other  passages  of  importance  in  which 
prayer  is  supposed  to  be  addressed  to  Christ  by  a  writer 
of  the  New  Testament,  are  the  following. 

1  Thess.  iii.  11,  12.  "  May  our  God  and  Father 
himself,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  to- 
ward you  ;  and  may  the  Lord  make  you  increase  and 
abound  in  your  love  toward  each  other  and  toward  all,  as 
we  do  toward  you." 

2  Thess.  ii.  16,  17.     "  May  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 

14* 


162   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

himself,  and  our  God  and  Father  who  has  loved  us,  and 
has,  through  his  favor,  given  us  everlasting  encourage- 
ment and  good  hope,  encourage  your  hearts  and  confirm 
you  in  every  good  word  and  work." 

In  the  former  of  these  passages,  we  find  St.  Paul  ex- 
pressing a  wish  that   Christ  under  God  might  direct  his 
way  to  the  Thessalonians.     It  may  be  explained  by  the 
fact    of  that   peculiar   and   miraculous    superintendence 
over  his  preaching  which  was  exercised  by  his  Master. 
We  know  that  he  had  first  preached  to  the  Thessaloni- 
ans in  consequence  of  a  miraculous   direction.*     In  the 
latter  passage,  in  his  wishes  that  the  Thessalonians  might 
enjoy  spiritual  blessings  from  Christ,    he    may,  proba- 
bly, refer  to  the  blessings  flowing  from  the  gospel  which 
Christ  taught.     The   effects  of  the  gospel  are   ascribed 
to   its  great  teacher ;   and   sometimes,   in  the   figurative 
style  of  the  New  Testament,  with  a  turn  of  expression, 
which  according  to  our  more  restrained  use  of  language 
might  imply  an  immediate  agency  in   their  production 
Which  was  not  intended  by  the  writer.     If,  however,  the 
Apostle  had  in  view,  not  the  power  of  the  gospel,  but  a 
present  agency  of  Christ,  we  must  consider  his  language 
as  founded  upon  the  conception  which  he  entertained  of 

*  "  But  Paul  and  Silas  having  passed  through  Phrygia  and  Galatia; 
and  being  restrained  by  the  holy  spirit  from  preaching  the  religion 
in  Asia,  came  to  Mysia,  and  were  preparing  to  go  to  Bithynia;  but 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  did  not  permit  them.  So  passing  through  Mysia, 
they  went  down  to  Troas.  And  a  vision  appeared  by  night  to  Paul. 
A  certain  man,  a  Macedonian,  was  standing  by  him  and  entreating 
him,  saying  ;  Pass  over  to  Macedonia  and  help  us.  Then  immediate- 
ly after  this  vision,  we  endeavoured  to  go  to  Macedonia  ;  concluding 
that  the  Lord  [Christ]  had  directed  us  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them." 
—  Acts,  xvi,  6 — 10. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        163 

Christ's  extraordinary  agency  over  the  concerns  of  the 
first  Christians. 

This   agency,  as  I  have  said,  was  miraculous.     We 
have  no  reason   to  believe  in   its  continuance  after  the 
Apostolic  age.     A  connexion  of  the  same  nature,  a  mi- 
raculous connexion  between   Christ   and  his  followers, 
does   not  exist  at  the   present  day  ;  nor  have  we  anv 
ground  for  believing  that  God  has  committed  to  him  a 
superintendence  of  their  concerns.     Though  it  should, 
therefore,  appear,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  extraordi- 
nary and  peculiar  relation  subsisting  between  Christ  and 
the  first  Christians,  he  was,  under  certain  circumstances 
and  conditions,  regarded  by  his  Apostles  as  one  to  whom 
requests  might   be  addressed  ;  yet,  upon  the  ceasing  of 
that  relation,  no  reason  would  remain  for  his  being  re- 
garded by  common  Christians  as  an  object  of  prayer. 

But  it  has  been  contended  that  the  first  Christians, 
generally,  were  accustomed  to  offer  prayers  to  Christ. 
This  belief  is  founded  upon  a  few  passages  in  which 
Christians,  according  to  the  rendering  of  the  Common 
Version,  are  represented  as  "  calling  upon  his  name." 
Thus,  Acts.  ix.  14.  "  He  [Saul]  hath  authority  to 
bind  all  that  call  on  thy  name  ;  "  —  the  address  of  An- 
anias to  Saul,  Acts.  xxii.  16.  "  And  now  why  tarriest 
thou  ?  arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins, 
calling  upon  the  name  of  the   Lord ; "  —  1   Cor.   i.  2. 

"  To  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth, with 

all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Lord."  Another  passage  to  the  same  effect 
may  be  found  in  Acts  ix.  21. 

The  expression  in  the  original  rendered  "  to  call  on 
the  name  of"  is  one  repeatedly  used  in  the  Septuagint 


164        EXPLANATIONS     OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

in  relation  to  God,  where  direct  address  in  prayer  to 
him  is  intended.  But  its  meaning  varies,  I  believe, 
when  used  concerning  a  different  being. 

In  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  term  rendered 
'  name  '  is  pleonastic,  and  should  be  omitted  in  a  trans- 
lation. This  being  premised,  it  may  next  be  remarked 
that  the  Greek  verb  irtixaXsta&ai,  rendered  'to  call 
upon,'  does  not  properly  and  directly  denote  religious 
invocation.  In  its  primary  sense,  it  signifies  '  to  call ' 
or  '  to  call  upon'  any  one;  in  a  secondary  mean- 
ing, f  to  call  on  one  for  help.'  By  a  very  easy  ex- 
tension of  this  meaning,  it  denotes,  I  believe,  '  to  look 
to  one  for  help,'  t  to  rely  upon  one  for  help,  protection, 
deliverance,'  '  to  trust  in  one.'  In  this  use  of  it  no 
verbal  address  is  implied ;  the  word  is  used  metaphori- 
cally. It  literally  denotes  c  calling  for  help  '  ;  it  is  used 
to  express  the  state  of  mind  in  which  we  trust  in  anoth- 
er for  help.  In  this  sense,  I  think,  the  word  ought  to 
be  understood,  when  used  concerning  Christ.  The 
meaning  of  the  terms  rendered  '  calling  on  the  name 
of  Christ,'  would,  I  believe,  be  properly  and  fully  ex- 
pressed in  English  by  the  words,  'looking  to  Christ  for 
deliverance,'  that  is,  through  the  power  of  the  gospel. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  why,  when  the  words  in  ques- 
tion have  a  meaning  in  which  they  are  often  used  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  according  to  which  they  would 
describe  Christians  generally  as  invoking,  that  is,  pray- 
ing to,  Christ,  should  this  meaning  be  set  aside.  I  re- 
peat what  I  have  said,  that  the  verb  emxakiopcu  does  not 
properly  and  directly  denote  religious  invocation ;  and 
that,  its  object  being  changed,  there  is  nothing  improba- 
ble in  the  supposition,  that  the  signification  of  the  verb 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    165 

is  changed  also.  I  answer  further,  that  there  seem  to 
be  insuperable  objections  to  the  belief,  that  prayer  was 
offered  to  Christ  by  the  first  Christians.  His  followers 
were  not  commanded  by  our  Saviour  to  pray  to  him. 
Without  such  a  command  they  could  not  have  sup- 
posed that  he  whom  they  had  known  habitually  to  offer 
prayers  to  his  Father  and  our  Father,  was  himself  an 
object  of  prayer.  Our  Saviour  referred  his  Apostles 
from  himself  to  God,  as  the  invisible  being  to  whom  their 
requests  were  to  be  addressed  when  he  should  be  taken 
from  them,  —  as  the  only  proper  object  of  prayer : 
"  Then  ye  shall  ask  nothing  of  me.  I  tell  you  in  truth, 
that  whatever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he 
will  grant  you."  #  Conformably  to  this,  we  find  no 
precept  enjoining  prayer  to  Christ  in  their  writings. 
But  whether  Christians  were  or  were  not  to  pray  to 
Christ,  could  not  have  been  a  matter  of  indifference. 
It  was  either  to  be  done,  or  it  was  not  to  be  done.  If  a 
duty,  it  differed  from  other  duties,  in  the  circumstance, 
that  it  must  have  been  founded  solely  upon  revelation 
and  an  express  command.  At  the  same  time,  if  Chris- 
tians were  to  have  two  objects  of  prayer,  peculiar  direc- 
tions, explanations,  and  cautions  must  have  been  neces- 
sary. But  nothing  appears  in  the  New  Testament 
answering  to  the  suppositions  which  have  been  made. 
There  is  an  entire  want  of  that  evidence  of  the  fact 
which  must  have  existed,  if  prayer  to  Christ  had  been 
commanded  by  himself  and  his  Apostles.  But  if  not  so 
commanded,  it  was  not  practised  by  the  first  Christians. 
The  case  was  the   same  with  them  as  with  us  ;    if  it  be 

*  John  xvi.  23. 


166    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT*. 

not  a  duty  to  pray  to  Christ,  it  is  a  duty  not  to  pray  td 
him. 

It  appears,  therefore,  from  the  New  Testament,  that 
the  first  Christians  did  not  offer  prayers  to  Christ.  But 
there  is  still  other  evidence  of  this  truth,  to  which,  though 
of  less  importance,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  advert. 

It  has  been  urged  that  Pliny,  in  his  celebrated  letter 
to  Trajan,  states  (on  the  authority  of  some  who  said 
that  they  had  been  Christians,  but  who  had  deserted  the 
religion)  that  Christians  in  their  assemblies,  were  "  ac- 
customed to  sing  together  a  hymn  in  alternate  parts  to 
Christ  as  to  a  god "— "  carmen  Christo>  quasi  deo, 
dicere  secum  invicem." 

These  words  have  been  alleged  to  prove,  both  that 
Christians  prayed  to  Christ,  and  that  they  believed  him 
to  be  God.  But  the  only  fact  which  appears,  is,  that 
Christians  sung  hymns  in  celebration  of  Christ.  The 
rest  is  the  interpretation  of  a  heathen,  who  compared  in 
his  own  mind  these  hymns  to  those  which  the  heathens 
sung  in  honor  of  their  gods  ;  who  like  Christ  had  dwelt 
on  the  earth  ;  and,  like  him,  having  died,  were  supposed 
to  be  still  living  in  a  higher  state  of  being.  With  his  hea- 
then notions,  he  conceived  of  the  Christians  as  making 
a  sort  of  apotheosis  of  their  master.  But  there  is  evi- 
dence on  the  subject  before  us  much  more  direct  and 
more  important  than  that  of  Pliny. 

It  is  the  evidence  of  Origen,  who  wrote  a  treatise 
"  On  Prayer  "  in  the  former  half  of  the  third  century. 
Of  prayer,  properly  speaking^  Origen  says  : 

"  If  we  understand  what  prayer  is,  it  will  appear  that 
it  is  never  to  be  offered  to  any  originated  being,  not  to 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  167 

Christ  himself,  but  only  to  the  God  and  Father  of  all  • 
to  whom  our  Saviour  himself  prayed  and  taught  us  to 
pray.  For  when  his  disciples  asked  him,  Teach  us  to 
pray,  he  did  not   teach  them  to  pray  to  himself,  but  to 

the  Father." "  Conformably  to  what  he   said, 

Why  callest  thou  me  good  1  there  is  none  good  except 
one,  God,  the  Father,  how  could  he  say  otherwise, 
than,  '  Why  dost  thou  pray  to  me  ?  Prayer,  as  ye  learn 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  to  be  offered  to  the  Father 

only,  to  whom  I  myself  pray.'  " "  <  Ye  have  read 

the  words  which  I  spoke  by  David  to  the  Father  con- 
cerning you  ;  1  will  declare  thy  name  to  my  brethren  ;  in 
the  midst  of  the  assembly  will  I  sing  hymns  to  thee.  It 
is  not  consistent  with  reason  for  those  to  pray  to  a  broth- 
er, who  are  esteemed  worthy  of  one  Father  with  him. 
You,  with  me  and  through  me,  are  to  address  your  pray- 
ers to  the  Father  alone.'  ; ' "  Let  us  then,  at- 
tending to  what  was  said  by  Jesus,  and  all  having  the 
same  mind,  pray  to  God  through  him,  without  any 
division  respecting  the  mode  of  prayer.  But  are  we 
not  divided,  if  some  pray  to  the  Father  and  some  to 
the  Son  ?  Those  who  pray  to  the  Son,  whether  they 
do  or  do  not  pray  to  the  Father  also,  fall  into  a  gross 
error  in  their  great  simplicity,  through  want  of  judg- 
ment and  examination."  # 

In  learning  and  talents,  Origen,  during  his  life  time, 
had  no  rival  among  Christians.  There  was  none  who 
possessed  the  same  weight  of  character.     The  opinions 

*  De  Oratione.  Opp.  I.  pp.222  —  224.  I  quote  the  last  passage 
principally  because  it  is  erroneously  rendered  by  Dr.  Priestley  (Hist. 
of  Early  Opinions,  II.  161.)  in  a  manner  directly  adverse  to  his  own 
argument. 


168    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

which  he  expresses  in  the  passages  just  quoted  were 
undoubtedly  the  common  opinions  of  the  Christians  of 
his  time. 

Origen  himself,  indeed,  in  other  passages  asserts  or 
implies,  that  prayer  in  an  inferior  sense  may  be  address- 
ed to  the  Logos  or  Christ.  In  his  work  against  Celsus,  he 
says,  for  instance  ;  "  Every  supplication,  prayer,  request, 
and  thanksgiving  is  to  be  addressed  to  him  who  is  God 
over  all,  through  the  High  Priest,  superior  to  all  an- 
gels, the  living  and  divine  Logos.  But  we  shall  also 
supplicate  the  Logos  himself,  and  make  requests  to  him, 
and  give  thanks  and  pray,  whenever  we  may  be  able 
to  distinguish  between  prayer  properly  speaking  and 
prayer  in  a  looser  sense."  *  Probably  what  is  here 
meant  may  appear  from  two  other  passages,  in  his 
work  against  Celsus,  in  which  he  says  ;  "  that  we  first 
bring  our  prayers  to  the  only  Son  of  God,  the  First- 
born of  the  whole  creation,  the  Logos  of  God,  and  pray 
to  him  and  request  him,  as  a  High  Priest,  to  offer  up 
the  prayers  which  reach  him,  to  the  God  over  all,  to 
his  God  and  our  God."  f  It  is,  indeed,  most  likely 
that  the  doctrine  of  Origen  concerning  the  propriety  of 
offering  prayers,  in  any  sense  of  the  term,  to  the  Logos 
or  Christ,  had  its  origin  rather  in  his  own  philosophical 
opinions,  than  in  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  generali- 
ty of  Christians. 

The  Trinitarian    supposes,    that  the    first  Christians 
were  taught  to  pray  to  Christ  or  the  Son,  as  God  equal 

*  Cont.  Cels.  Lib.  v.   §  4    Opp.  I.  580.—  lav  ivvuptta  xaraxovtir  r»s 
t  lb.  Lib.  vin.  $  13.  p.  751.  et  §  26.       761. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        169 

to  the  Father,  and  that  they  were  distinguished  by  the 
circumstance  of  offering  such  prayers,  as  "  those  who 
called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  How  is  it  possi- 
ble to  reconcile  this  supposition  with  the  state  of  opinion 
and  practice  which  we  find  among  Christians  during  the 
time  of  Origen,  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  ?  The 
Antitrinitarian  believes,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of 
Christ  had  been  making  gradual  progress.  When, 
therefore,  he  finds  that  at  the  period  just  mentioned, 
Christ  was  still  spoken  of  by  a  writer  so  eminent  as  Ori- 
gen, as  not  being  an  object  of  prayer  properly  so  called, 
no  doubt  remains  on  his  mind,  that  he  had  never  been  so 
regarded  at  any  preceding  period,  that  he  was  not  so 
represented  by  himself  or  his  Apostles,  nor  so  esteemed 
by  the  first  Christians, 

On  the  Prcemstence  of  Christ. 

I  will  now  turn  to  the  passages  which  are  supposed 
particularly  to  assert  the  preexistence  of  Christ.  If  this 
doctrine  were  proved,  it  would  afford  no  proof  of  his  be- 
ing God  ;  but  the  prejudices  in  favor  of  the  Trinitarian 
doctrine  have,  notwithstanding,  been  strengthened  by  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  passages  referred  to.  The  figu- 
rative language  in  which  several  of  them  are  expressed 
may,  I  think,  be  explained  by  the  following  considera- 
tions. 

One  of  the  main  objections  of  the  generality  of  the 
Jews  to  Christianity  was  its  being  a  novelty,  an  innova- 
tion, subverting  their  former  faith.  The  Pharisees  said; 
"  We  are  the  disciples  of  Moses  ;  we  know  that  God 
spoke  to  Moses  ;  as  for  this  man,  we  know  not  whence 
15 


170        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

he  comes."  *  The  doctrine  of  Christ  was  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  popular  religion  of  the  Jews,  which,  though 
a  religion  of  hypocrisy,  formalities,  superstition,  and  big- 
otry, they  had  identified  in  their  own  minds  with  the 
Law ;  —  and  the  Law,  their  ancient  Law,  which  for 
fifteen  centuries,  as  they  believed,  had  been  their  dis- 
tinguishing glory,  they  looked  upon  as  an  immutable 
covenant  made  by  God  with  his  chosen  people.  Were 
the  doctrines  of  Christ,  they  might  ask,  to  be  opposed 
to  what  they  believed,  and  what  their  fathers  had  be- 
lieved, upon  the  faith  of  God?  Was  a  teacher  of 
yesterday  to  be  placed  in  competition  with  Moses  and 
the  Prophets  ?  Was  it  to  be  supposed  that  God  would 
change  his  purposes,  alter  the  terms  of  their  allegiance, 
and  substitute  a  new  religion  for  that  which  he  had  so 
solemnly  sanctioned  ? 

One  mode  of  meeting  these  feelings  and  prejudices 
of  the  Jews  was  by  the  use  of  language  adapted  to  their 
modes  of  conception,  asserting  or  implying,  that  the 
sending  of  Christ,  and  the  establishment  of  his  religion, 
had  always  been  purposed  by  God.  This  was  done  in 
part  by  figurative  modes  of  speech,  conformed  to  the 
Oriental  style,  and  more  or  less  similar  to  many  which 
we  find  in  the  Old  Testament.  Facts  connected  with 
the  introduction  of  Christianity  were  spoken  of  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  —  according  to  the  verbal  meaning 
of  their  language,  —  as  having  taken  place  before  the 
world  was  ;  the  purpose  being  to  express  in  the  most 
forcible  manner,  that  their  existence  was  to  be  referred 
immediately  to  God,  and  had  from  eternity  been  prede- 

*  John  ix.  28,  29. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    171 

termined  by  him.     What  they  meant  to  represent  God  as 
having  foreordained,  they  described  as  actually  existing. 

Thus  St.  Paul  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
(viii.  29,  30.)  "For  those  whom  God  foreknew,  he 
predestined  should  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son, 
that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren  ; 
and  whom  he  predestined,  he  summoned,  and  whom  he 
summoned,  he  made  righteous,  and  whom  he  made 
righteous,  he  glorified."  I  refer  particularly  to  the  last 
clause,  in  which  God  is  spoken  of  as  having  already  glo- 
rified the  disciples  of  Christ,  because  it  is  certain  that  he 
will.  * 

Thus  also  in  writing  to  the  Ephesians  (i.  3,  4.)  ; 
"Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  having  exalted  us  to  heaven  is  blessing  us 
with  every  spiritual  blessing  through  Christ,  he  having 
in  his  love  chosen  us  through  him  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world." 

To  Timothy  (  2  Ep.  i.  8,  9. )  he  says,  "  Suffer  to- 
gether with  me  for  the  gospel,  sustained  by  the  pow- 
er of  God,  who  has  delivered  us,  and  summoned  us  by  a 
sacred  call,  not  in  consequence  of  our  works,  but  con- 
formably to  his  own  purpose,  and  the  favor  bestowed  up- 
on  us  through  Christ  Jesus  before  time  was." 

So  also  to  Titus  (i.  1,  2.)  ;  "  Paul,  a  servant  of  God, 
and  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  preach  the  faith  of 
the  chosen  of  God,  to  make  known  the  truth  which 
leads  to  the  true  worship  of  God,  founded  on  the  ex- 
pectation of  eternal  life,  which  God  who  cannot  deceive 
promised  before  time  was." 

*  Conjp.  verses  17 — 25. 


172        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

When  Christianity,  after  having  been  preached  to  the 
Jews,  was,  if  I  may  so  speak,  committed  in  trust  to  its 
Gentile  converts,  it  had  to  encounter  the  3ame  objection 
of  its  being  a  nove]  doctrine  ;  and  this  objection  was  met 
in  a  similar  manner,  and  by  a  similar  use  of  language.  In 
his  "  Exhortation  to  the  Gentiles,"  Clement  of  Alexandria 
says  ;  "  Error  is  ancient,  truth  appears  a  novelty." 
Then,  after  mentioning  some  of  those  nations  which 
made  the  most  extravagant  pretensions  to  antiquity,  he 
adds,  "  But  we  [Christians]  were  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world  ;  through  the  certainty  of  our  future  exist- 
ence, previously  existing  in  God  himself."  # 

We  should  hardly  expect  to  find  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment a  critical  explanation  of  any  figurative  mode  of 
speech  ;  but  something  very  like  such  an  explanation  of 
that  which  we  are  considering,  is  found  in  St.  Paul, 
when  his  words  are  properly  translated  and  understood. 
In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (iv.  16,  17,)  he  says  ; 
"  The  promise  was  sure  to  all  the  race  of  Abraham,  not 
to  those  under  the  Law  only,  but  to  those  who  have  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all  (as  it  is 
written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations)  in  the 

Iigo  ot  tjjj  tou  xoit/jcou  xurafioXn;  hpus*  01  <r<5  tziv  'iffirllai,  iv  uury 
vrgortgov  yiyivnftfiUot  <ru  0s£,  p.  6.  ed.  Potter.  —  We  find  the  same 
figurative  use  of  language  in  the  writings  of  the  later  Jews.  In  the 
Talmud  it  is  recorded,  that  R.  Eliezer  said;  "Seven  things  were 
created  hefore  the  world;  the  Garden  of  Eden,  the  Law,  the  Righ- 
teous, the  Israelites,  the  Throne  of  Glory,  Jerusalem,  and  the  Mes- 
siah, the  Son  of  David."  This,  in  the  Book  Cosri,  is  explained  as 
meaning,  that  "they  were  prior  in  the  intention  of  God";  they 
constituting  the  end  for  which  the  world  was  created ;  and  the  end 
being  in  intention  precedent  to  the  means.  Liber  Cosri,  ed-  Bux- 
torf.  p.  254, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    173 

sight  of  God  in  whom  he  trusted, — of  Him  who  restores 
life  to  the  dead,  and  speaks  of  the  things  which  are  not, 
as  though  they  were."  In  the  view  of  the  Apostle, 
God,  as  it  were,  restored  life  to  the  dead,  in  enabling 
Abraham  and  Sarah  to  have  a  son ;  *  and  in  calling 
Abraham  the  father  of  many  nations,  spoke  of  the 
things  which  were  not,  as  though  they  were. 

Using  language  in  the  manner  which  has  been  illus- 
trated, our  Saviour  spoke  in  his  last  prayer  with  his 
disciples,  on  the  night  before  his  death,  of  the  glory 
which  he  had  with  God  before  the  world  was  : 

"  Thus  spoke  Jesus  and  raised  his  eyes  to  heaven 
and  said;  Father  the  hour  has  come.  Glorify  thy  son, 
that  thy  son  may  glorify  thee  ;  thou  having  granted  him 
power  over  all  men  to  give  to  all  whom  thou  hast  given 
him,  eternal  life.  And  this  is  eternal  life,  to  know  that 
thou  art  the  only  true  God,  and  that  he  whom  thou  hast 
sent,  Jesus,  is  the  Messiah.  I  have  glorified  thee  on 
earth ;  I  have  completed  the  work  which  thou  gavest 
me  to  do  ;  and  now,  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thy- 
self, with  that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was."  f 

*  That  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  appears  from  the  ver- 
ses which  immediately  follow  those  quoted  above  :  "  For  he  [Abra- 
ham] had  confident  hope  of  that  which  was  past  hope,  that  he  should 
be  the  father  of  many  nations  according  to  the  declaration,  Thus 
will  thy  offspring  be.  And,  not  being  weak  in  faith, he  did  not  regard 
his  own  body  then  dead,  he  being  about  a  hundred  years  old,  nor 
the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb;  nor  had  he  any  doubt  or  mistrust 
about  the  promise  of  God." 

Compare  also  Hebrews  xi.  19,  where,  in  reference  to  the  birth  of 
Isaac,  Abraham  is  said  to  have  received  him,  figuratively  speaking, 
from  the  dead. 

t  John  xvii.  1  —  5. 

15* 


174        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Afterwards,  in  speaking  of  his  disciples,  our  Saviour 
says ;  "  The  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me  I  have 
given  them";*  words  implying  that  the  glory  which  he 
had  with  the  Father  was  such  as  might  be  conferred  on 
men  ;  and  such  as,  by  constituting  them  his  Apostles,  he 
had  enabled  them  to  attain. 

" Father,"  he  continues,  "I  desire  that  those  whom 
thou  hast  given  me  may  be  with  me  where  I  am,  to  be- 
hold my  glory  ;  for  thou  lovedst  me  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world."  f 

The  character  and  purport  of  these  expressions  of 
Jesus  are  explained  by  what  has  been  said.  A  princi- 
pal object  of  our  Saviour  in  the  language  of  this  prayer, 
as  well  as  throughout  the  discourse  which  precedes  it, 
was  to  strengthen  the  minds  of  his  Apostles  to  meet  that 
fearful  trial  of  their  faith  which  was  close  at  hand,  and 
to  prepare  them  for  their  approaching  separation  from  him. 
He  uses,  in  consequence,  the  most  forcible  modes  of 
speech  in  order  to  produce  the  deepest  impression.  He 
desired  by  the  whole  weight  of  his  authority,  by  every 
feeling  of  affection  and  awe,  by  language  the  most  preg- 
nant and  of  the  highest  import,  and  by  figures  too  strong 
and  solemn  ever  to  be  forgotten,  to  make  them  feel  his 
connexion,  and  their  own  connexion,  with  God.  Their 
teacher,  their  master,  their  friend,  was  the  special  mes- 
senger of  God,  distinguished  by  his  favor  beyond  all 
other  men  ;  and  in  this  favor  they  shared,  as  his  followers. 
He  was,  in  the  Oriental  style,  "one  with  God"  in  the 
work  in  which  he  had  been  engaged ;  and  they,  in  like 
manner,  were  to  be  one  with  God  and  him.     God  had 

*  John  xvii.  22.  t  lb.  verse  24. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    175 

from  eternity  regarded  him  with  love ;  and  they  were 
like  objects  of  God's  love.  *  They  were  hereafter  to 
behold  in  heaven  the  consummate  glory  of  him,  who 
before  the  close  of  another  day  was  to  be  exposed  to  the 
mockery  of  the  Roman  soldiers,  to  suffer  the  outrages  of 
an  infuriated  mob,  and  to  expire  by  a  death  as  ignomini- 
ous as  it  was  cruel. 

Having  furnished  the  key  to  passages  of  this  kind,  of 
which  there  are  not  many,  I  will  notice  particularly  but 
one  other.  John  viii.  52,  53,56  —  58.  "The  Jews 
said  to  Jesus  ;  Now  we  know  that  thou  art  a  madman  ; 
Abraham  died  and  the  prophets;  and  thou  sayest,  If  a 
man  obey  my  words,  he  shall  never  taste  of  death.  Art 
thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  who  died?  And 
the  prophets  died.  Whom  dost  thou  make  thyself? 
Jesus  answered, Your  father,  Abraham,  earn- 
estly desired  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  rejoiced. 
Then  the  Jews  said  to  him,  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty 
years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  Jesus  said  to 
them,  I  tell  you  in  truth,  before  Abraham  existed,  I  was 
he." 

The  rendering  of  the  Common  Version,  "  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am,"  is  without  meaning  ;  the  present 
tense,  "  I  am,"  being  connected  with  the  mention  of 
past  time,  "before  Abraham  was";  and  this  circum- 
stance has  doubtless  assisted  in  producing  the  belief,  that 
the  words  express  a  mystery.  But  our  Saviour  says, 
that  Abraham  saw  his  day,  that  is,  the  times  of  the  Mes- 


*  — "  That  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast 
loved  them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me."    John  xvii.  23. 


176    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

siah.  This  declaration  no  one  understands  verbally, 
and  there  is  as  little  reason  for  giving  a  verbal  meaning 
to  that  under  consideration.  In  the  explanation  of  it  two 
things  are  to  be  attended  to. 

In  the  first  place,  after  the  word  elfil,  rendered  in  the 
Common  Version,  '  I  am/  we  must  understand  6  Xgiarog, 
1  the  Messiah ' ;  as  is  evident  from  two  preceding  passa- 
ges in  the  same  discourse.  In  verse  24,  Jesus  says, 
with  the  same  ellipsis,  "  If  ye  believe  not  that  J  am 
[that  is,  that  I  am  the  Messiah],  ye  shall  die  in  your 
sins  "  ;  and  in  verse  28,  he  tells  the  Jews,  "  When  ye 
have  lifted  up  [crucified]  the  Son  of  Man,  then  shall 
ye  know  that  Jam,"  meaning,  that  1  am  the  Messiah. 
The  same  ellipsis  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  Mark  xiii.  6,  and  Luke  xxi.  8. 
we  find  the  words,  "  Many  shall  come  in  my  name, 
saying  I  am  "  ;  while  in  Matthew  xxiv.  5,  the  ellipsis 
is  supplied,  "  Many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying,  I 
am  the  Messiah."  Other  examples  are  referred  to  be- 
low. * 

This  apparently  strange  omission  of  the  predicate  of 
so  important  a  proposition  may,  I  think,  be  thus  explain- 
ed. The  Messiah  was  expected  by  the  Jews  as  one, 
who,  placing  himself  at  the  head  of  the  nation,  would 
deliver  them  from  the  tyranny  under  which  they  were 
suffering.  Equally  to  Herod,  the  ruler  of  Galilee,  and 
to  the  Roman  procurator  of  Judea,  an  individual,  public- 
ly announcing  himself  as  the  Messiah,  must  have  appear- 
ed a  daring  rebel,  exciting  the  nation  to  revolt.  The 
subject  was  one  about  which  the  Jews  must  have  com- 

*  Acts  xiii.  25,  (comp.  John  iii.  28.)    John  iv.  26.  xiii.  19. 


Explanations  of  the  new  testament.      177 

Mimed  together  with  the  feelings  of  conspirators  ;  and  in 
discussing  it,  they  would  use   imperfect  and   ambiguous 
language,  indicating,  rather  than  expressing,  their  mean- 
ing.    Even    when    danger    was    not    feared,   a   certain 
degree  of  secrecy  might  be  affected,  and  there  might  be 
a  dispostion   to  employ  terms    the    full   significance    of 
which  would  be  understood  only  by  those  who  felt  with 
the  speaker.     Upon  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  the  multi- 
tude being  excited  by  his  miracles  and  preaching,  and  the 
intimations   concerning   his   character,  the   inquiry  arose 
among  them,  whether  he  were  the  Messiah.    The  question 
was  often  asked,  we  may  suppose,  eagerly,  but  cautious- 
ly, '  Is  it  he  ? '   OvTog  ion ;  —  not  broadly  and  rashly,  c  Is 
he  the  Messiah  ? '  and  a  corresponding  answer  returned, 
3EotI,  '  He  is  '  —  Om  sort,  '  He  is  not.'    I  have  adverted  to 
the  dangerous  nature  of  the  subject,  as  connected  with 
the  purpose  of  revolt  against  the  Roman   power.     The 
mere  fact,  however,  of  its  being  one  of  universal  interest, 
on  which  the  thoughts  of  men  were  strongly  bent,  may 
be  alone  sufficient  to  account  for  the  use  of  abbreviated 
expressions  to  convey  a  meaning   that  every  one  was' 
ready  to  apprehend.     Still,  the  predicate  of  the  propo- 
sition we  are  considering  being  suppressed,  and  the  lan- 
guage, in  consequence,  being  in  itself  wholly  ambiguous, 
this  manner  of  speaking  might  be  adopted  by  Christ  for 
the  purpose  of  at  once   intimating  his  claims  to  be  the 
Messiah,  and  leaving  his  meaning  in  some  degree  uncer- 
tain.    Thus  in  the  present  discourse,  when  he  tells  the 
Jews  (verse  24),  "  If  ye  believe  not  that  lam  he,  ye  will 
die  in  your  sins"  ;  they  ask  in  return,  "  Who  art  thou  ? " 
The    use,  therefore,  of  this  mode  of  expression  corre- 
sponded to  that  reserve  as  to  openly  and  explicitly  avowing 


178        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  which  the  expectations  and 
feelings  of  the  Jews  compelled  him  to  maintain  till  the 
closing  scenes  of  his  ministry.  * 

In  the  next  place  the  verb  eltul  is  here  to  be  under- 
stood as  having  the  force  of  the  perfect  tense,  that  is,  a3 
denoting)  literally  or  figuratively,  a  state  of  being,  com- 
menced at  a  distant  time,  and  continued  to  the  present. 
It  is  thus  elsewhere  used  in  St.  John's  Gospel.  "  Have 
I  been  [verbally,  Am  I  ]  so  long  with  you,  and  yet  hast 
thou  not  known  me,  Philip  ?  "  f  But  such  is  our  use  of 
language,  that  this  meaning  is  here  to  be  expressed  in 
English  by  the  imperfect  tense,  '  I  was.'  If  wTe  should 
say,  "  Before  Abraham  existed,  I  have  been,"  the 
idea  of  uninterrupted  continuance  of  being  to  the 
present  time  is  so  far  from  being  conveyed,  that  it  is 
rather  excluded. 

The  full  meaning  of  Jesus,  then,  was  this  ;  Before 
Abraham  existed,  I  was  the  Messiah ;  that  is,  I  was  de- 
signated by  God  as  the  Messiah.  The  words  cannot  be 
understood  verbally,  because  '  the  Messiah  '  was  the  title 
of  one  bearing  an  office  which  did  not   exist  till  it  was 

*  It  may  be  objected  to  this  account,  that  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  are 
represented  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  John's  Gospel  as  explicitly 
discussing  the  question,  whether  Jesus  were  or  were  not  the  Messiah. 
(See  verses  26,  27,  31,  41,  42.)  I  answer  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  the  caution  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  subject  in  question 
was  always  maintained.  It  might  disappear  in  the  heat  of  controversy, 
and  it  gave  way,  without  doubt,  to  the  excitement  of  strong  feelings ; 
as  when  the  multitude  wished  to  compel  Jesus  to  place  himself  at 
their  head,  as  their  king,  (John  vi.  15.);  and  upon  his  triumphant 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  just  before  his  crucifixion.  It  is  sufficient  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  our  Saviour's  language,  if  the  mode  of  ex- 
pression he  adopted  were  common. 

f  John  xiv.  9. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        179 

assumed  by  Jesus  on  earth.  Before  Abraham,  there 
was  no  Messiah  except  in  the  purpose  of  God.  The 
language  used  by  Christ  is  of  the  same  figurative  char- 
acter with  that  which  we  find  at  the  commencement  of 
the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  as  addressed  to  him  by  God 
(i.  5.);  " Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  womb,  I  knew 
thee  ;  and  before  thou  earnest  forth  at  thy  birth,  I  sancti- 
fied thee,  and  I  ordained  thee  a  prophet  to  the  nations." 

We  will  now  consider  some  passages  of  a  different 
character.  In  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  our 
Saviour  says  (John  hi.  12,  13.),  "  If  I  have  told  you 
earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  will  ye  believe 
if  I  tell  you  heavenly  things.  And  no  one  has  ascend- 
ed to  heaven,  but  he  who  descended  from  heaven,  the 
Son  of  Man,  who  is  in  heaven." 

Heaven  being  considered  by  the  Jews  as  the  local 
habitation  of  the  Deity,  '  to  ascend  to  heaven  '  is  here 
a  figure  used  to  denote  the  becoming  acquainted  with  the 
purposes  and  will  of  God,  with  things  invisible  and  spir- 
itual, "  heavenly  things  " ;  '  to  be  in  heaven  '  is  to  possess 
such  acquaintance  ;  and  '  to  descend  from  heaven,'  or  '  to 
come  from  heaven,'  is  to  come  from  God. 

In  this  sense  the  expression  '  to  descend  from  heaven  ' 
is  used  by  our  Saviour  in  his  discourse  with  the  Jews 
recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel.  The 
Jews,  whom  he  had  disappointed  the  day  before  in 
their  attempt  "  to  make  him  their  king,"  or  in  other  words, 
to  compel  him  to  assume  publicly  the  character  of  the 
Messiah,  according  to  their  conceptions  of  it,  had  now 
collected  about  him  with  very  different  feelings.     They 


180        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

were  disposed  to  disparage  his  miracles  in  comparison 
with  those  of  Moses.  He  had  fed  five  thousand  men 
with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes  ;  but  Moses,  they  said, 
quoting  the  Old  Testament,  "  had  given  them,"  the 
Jews,  "  bread  from  heaven  to  eat."  *  In  what  follows, 
this  expression  is  used  figuratively  by  our  Saviour,  to 
denote  that  his  doctrine  came  from  God,  or,  to  express 
the  same  idea  in  other  words,  that  he  himself  came  from 
God.  It  was  usual  for  him  to  draw  his  figures  from 
something  which  had  just  been  said,  or  some  present 
object  or  recent  event.  "  Moses,"  he  says,  "gave  you 
not  the  bread  from  heaven  "  ;  meaning  that  Moses  had 
not  given  them  a  religion  like  his  own,  adapted  to  sup- 
ply all  their  spiritual  wants  ;  "  but  my  Father,"  he  con- 
tinues, "  is  giving  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven  ;  for 
the  bread  of  God  is  descending  from  heaven  and  giving  life 
to  the  world."  f  By  '  the  bread  of  God  which  gives  life 
to  the  world,'  our  Saviour  here  means  his  doctrines,  his 
religion  ;  and  with  this  by  an  obvious  figure,  common  in 
the  New  Testament,  he  afterwards  identifies  himself. 
"  I  am  the  bread  of  life ;  he  who  comes  to  me  shall 
never  hunger,  and  he  who  puts  his  trust  in  me  shall 
never  thirst."  J  "I  have  descended  from  heaven,  not 
to  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me  "  ;  || 
that  is,  I  who  bring  this  religion  from  heaven  have  no 
other  purpose  but  to   perform  the  will   of  God. 

The  Jews,  that  is  some  of  the  Jews,  his  enemies, 
carped,  as  usual,  at  his  words.  "  Then  the  Jews  mur- 
mured at  him,  because  he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which 
has  descended  from   heaven  ;  and  said,  Is  not  this  man, 

*  John  vi.  31.  f  verses  32,  33,  %  verse  35.         ||  verse  38. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        181 

Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
know  ?  What,  then,  does  he  mean  by  saying,  I  have 
descended  from  heaven  ?  "  *  We  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  they  understood  him  as  meaning;,  that  he 
being  a  man,  had  descended  from  heaven ;  or  that  he 
being  a  preexistent  spirit,  had  assumed  a  human  form. 
Their  objection  was  to  the  absolute  authority  which 
this  man,  Jesus,  the  son,  as  they  called  him,  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  claimed  as  the  delegate  of  God.  They  had 
the  same  feeling  as  was  shown  by  his  fellow-townsmen 
of  Nazareth,  when  they  asked  ;  "  Is  not  this  the  car- 
penter, the  son  of  Mary,  the  cousin  of  James  and  Jo- 
seph and  Judas  and  Simon  ?  "  f 

In  verse  6*2  of  this  chapter,  there  is  a  passage  thus 
rendered  in  the  Common  Version  ;  "  What  and  if  ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up  where  he  was 
before."  It  has  been  thought  to  refer  to  his  ascension 
to  heaven,  and  to  imply  that  he  existed  in  heaven  be- 
fore his  appearance  on  earth.  In  order  to  under- 
stand it  we  must  attend  to  its  connexion. 

In  the  preceding  part  of  the  discourse,  our  Saviour 
had  spoken  of  his  religion  as  bread  or  food  descending 
from  heaven,  and  having  figuratively  identified  himself 
with  his  religion,  he  describes  this  food  as  giving  eternal 
life.  "  I  tell  you  in  truth,  he  who  puts  his  trust  in  me 
has  eternal  life.  I  am  the  bread  of  life.  Your  fathers 
eat  the  manna  in  the  wilderness  and  died.  But  if  any 
one  eat  of  the  bread  which  is  descending  from  heaven., 
he  shall  not  die.     I  am   the  bread   of  life   descending 

*  verses  41,  42.  t  Mark  vi.  3. 

16 


182       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMEN1. 

from  heaven  ;  if  any  one  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live 
for  ever."  *    As  food  is  the  means  of  prolonging  the  natu- 
ral life,  so  the  religion  of  Christ  was  the  means  of  en- 
joying eternal  life.     Metaphors  of  a  similar  kind,  derived 
from    taking  food,    and    applied    to    the    partaking    of 
what    is    desirable,    the    being    compelled    to    endure 
what  is  painful,  or  the  experiencing  the  consequences, 
good  or  evil,  of  our  own  conduct,  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  are  probably  common  in  most  languages. 
In  such  metaphors,  however,  as  well   as  in  other  figura- 
tive modes  of  speech,  the  Oriental  style   passes  beyond 
the    limits    within    which    we    are  confined.      Thus   in 
Ecclesiasticus,  Wisdom  is  personified    and  represented 
as  saying  ;  "  Those  who  eat  me  shall  yet  be  hungry,  and 
those  who  drink  me  shall  yet  be  thirsty."  f     Thus  too 
in  the  Talmud,  R.  Hillel,  who  asserted  that  the  Mes- 
siah had  already  come,  is  said  to  have  been  opposed  by 
other  doctors,  who  maintained  that  "  the  Israelites  were 
yet  to  eat  the  days  of  the  Messiah."     He   on  the  con- 
trary affirmed  that  "  they  had  eaten  their  Messiah  in  the 
days  of  Hezekiah."  J 

But  in  the  words  following  those  last  quoted  from  our 
Saviour's  discourse,  there  is  an  accession  to  the  figure. 
It  becomes  a  vehicle  for  expressing  a  new  fact.  He 
says ;  "  But  the  bread  which  I  will  give  is  my  body, 
which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  In  this 
language,  he  refers,  I  conceive,  to  his  own  death.  He 
goes  on  ;  "  Unless  ye  eat  the  body  of  the  Son  of  Man 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you  ;  "  and  he 
repeats  and  insists  upon  this   strong   figure.     When  he 

*  John  vi.  47  —  51.  f  Chapter  xxiv.  21. 

\  See  Wetstein's  note  on  John  vi.  51. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        183 

thus  describes  the  food  of  life,  of  which  his  followers 
were  to  partake,  as  his  own  flesh  and  his  own  blood, 
the  only  purpose,  I  believe,  of  this  amplification  of  the 
figure  is  to  show  that  the  blessings  to  be  enjoyed  through 
him  were  to  be  purchased  by  his  violent  death.  It  was, 
I  think,  so  understood,  at  least  partially,  by  those  who 
heard  him.  His  object  was  to  destroy  all  hope  of  his  es- 
tablishing a  splendid  temporal  kingdom,  such  as  the  Jews 
had  been  expecting ;  and  thus  to  repress  all  worldly  mo- 
tives in  those  who  were  inclined  to  be  his  followers.  Their 
master  was  not  to  be  a  conqueror  and  a  monarch,  as  they 
might  have  hoped,  dispensing  honors  and  favors  to  his 
adherents  and  countrymen  ;  the  sacrifice  of  his  own  life 
was  required,  a  bloody  death  was  to  be  suffered  by  him, 
in  order  that  his  followers  might  enjoy  those  blessings  of 
which  he  was  the  minister.  So,  as  I  have  said,  he 
appears  to  have  been  understood ;  and  many  of  his 
followers  in  consequence  deserted  him. 

"  Thus  taught  Jesus  in  a  synagogue  at  Capernaum. 
Then  many  of  his  disciples,  when  they  heard  him,  said, 
This  is  strange  teaching  ;  who  can  listen  to  it  ?  But 
Jesus,  knowing  in  his  own  mind  that  his  disciples  were 
murmuring  on  account  of  his  discourse,  said  to  them  ; 
Does  this  give  you  offence  ?  What  then,  if  ye  should 
see  the  Son  of  Man  reascending  where  he  was  be- 
fore ?  "  * 

The  meaning  is,  Does  it  offend  you  that  I  speak  of 
my  death  ?  What  then  if  ye  shall  see  me  rising  from 
the  dead,  and  appearing  where  I  was  before  ?  When 
Jesus  made  mention  of  his  death,  he  on  other  oocasions 

*  John  vi.  59  —  62. 


184        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

connected  it  with  the  prediction  that  he  should  rise  from 
the  dead.  To  his  resurrection  he  alludes  as  a  signal 
proof  to  be  given  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  but  never 
elsewhere  to  his  ascension.  #  After  the  words  which  have 
been  quoted,  he  goes  on,  contrary  in  some  degree  to 
his  usual  custom,  to  explain  in  part  the  figurative  lan- 
guage which  he  had  used ;  "  What  is  spiritual,"  he 
says,  "  gives  life ;  the  flesh  profits  nothing  [that  is,  my 
flesh  would  profit  you  nothing] ;  the  words  which  I  speak 
unto  you  are  spiritual  and  give  life."  f 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  modern  German 
divines,  who  appear  themselves  to  regard  Christ  merely 
as  a  human  teacher,  that  he  was  believed  or  represent- 
ed by  his  Apostles,  if  not  by  himself,  to  have  been  a 
preexistent  being,  the  Logos  of  God.  They  appeal,  of 
course,  to  some  of  the  same  passages  which  are  brought 
forward  by  Trinitarians  and  others  in  support  of  this 
doctrine,  and  in  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ  in  which  it 
is  implied.  But  we  may  here  make  the  general  remark, 
that  if  the  Apostles  had  regarded  their  master  as  an  in- 
carnation of  a  great  preexistent  spirit,  far  superior  to  man, 
they  would  not  have  left  us  to  gather  their  belief  from 
a  doubtful  interpretation  of  a  few  scattered  passages. 
No  fact  concerning  him,  personally,  would  have  been 
put  forward  in  their  writings  with  more  prominence  and 
distinctness.  None  would  have  been  oftener  brought  into 
notice.  None  would  have  more  strongly  affected  their 
imaginations    and   feelings.       None   would   have   been 

*  See  an  explanation  of  this  verse  in  Simpson's  Essays  on  the    ,  ,m- 
guage  of  Scripture, 
t  verse  G3. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         1S5 

adapted  more  to  affect  their  disciples.  St.  Matthew 
would  not  have  written  an  account  of  his  Master  as  it 
must  be  conceded  that  he  has,  without  any  where  ex- 
pressly declaring  the  fact.  The  Apostles  would  have 
left  us  in  as  little  doubt  concerning  their  belief  of  it,  as 
concerning  their  belief  of  his  crucifixion  and  resurrec- 
tion. 


CLASS    V. 

Passages  relating  to  the  divine  authority  of  Christ  as 
the  minister  of  God,  to  the  manifestation  of  divine 
power  in  his  miracles  and  in  the  establishment  of 
Christianity,  and  to  Christianity  itself  spoken  of 
under  the  name  of  Christ,  and  considered  as  a  pro- 
mulgation of  the  laws  of  God's  moral  government,  — 
which  have  been  misinterpreted  as  proving  that  Christ 
himself  is   God. 

For  example  ;  there  are  two  passages  in  the  proph- 
ecies of  the  Old  Testament,  which  speak  of  a  messen- 
ger as  going  before  Jehovah  to  prepare  his  way  and 
announce  his  coming.     They  are  : 

Isaiah  xl.  3.  "A  voice  is  crying  ;  Prepare  ye  in  the 
waste  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  straight  in  the  desert 
a  road  for  our  God." 

Malachi  hi.  1.  "  Behold  I  will  send  my  messenger, 
and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me." 

These  passages  are  in  the  Gospels  applied  to  John  the 
Baptist,  the  precursor  of  Christ.  * 


*  Matth.  iii.  3.  xi.  10.    Mark  i.  2, 3.    Luke  i.  76.  iii.  4.    John  i.  23, 

16* 


186        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  angel,  who,  according  to  the  narrative  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Luke's  Gospel,  announced  the  birth  of 
John,  is  likewise  represented  as  saying  to  Zachariah  ; 

"  And  many  of  the  sons  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to 
Jehovah  their  God  ;  and  he  shall  go  before  him  with  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elijah."  # 

From  these  passages,  it  is  inferred  that  Christ  is  Je- 
hovah.    But  they  admit  of  an  easy  explanation. 

In  conformity  to  the  rude  apprehensions  of  the  Jews, 
we  often  find  in  the   Bible,  particularly  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament,   strong,   and,   in    themselves   considered,   harsh 
figures  applied  to  God,   which  are   borrowed  from  the 
properties,  passions,  and  actions  of  man,  and  even  of  the 
inferior  animals.     Among  them   is  the   common   figure 
by  which  God,  in    giving  any  peculiar   manifestation   of 
his  power,   is   represented   as   changing   his   place,    and 
coming  to  the  scene  where  his  power  is  displayed.     But 
if  we  except  the   case  of  miraculous  operations  exerted 
direct!  v    upon  the  minds  of  men,  the  power  of  God  must 
be  manifested  by  means  of  sensible  objects.     It  is  often 
repre-'  nted  as  exerted    through   the  agency   of  human 
beings  and  other  conscious  ministers  of  his    will.     When 
thus  exerted,  its  effects,  and  the  circumstances  by  which 
its  di      ay  is  attended,  are  sometimes   referred  to  God 
as  the   ultimate  cause,  and   sometimes  to  the  immediate 
agent.      What  is  said  in  one  case  to  be  done  by  an  angel, 
or  by    Moses,  or  by  Christ,   or  by    some   other  instru- 
ment of  God's  will,  is  in  another  case  said  to  be  done  by 
God.      Hie  power  displayed,   is  regarded,   according  to 
differ        .nodes  of  conceiving  the  same  thing,  as  apper- 

*Luke  i.  l(j,  17. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    187 

taining  to  him  or  to  them.  God  comes,  according  to  the 
language  of  Scripture,  when  a  commissioned  instrument 
of  his  will  appears  ;  and  the  precursor  of  the  latter  is 
the  precursor  of  God.  Thus  too,  as  the  power  and 
goodness  of  God  were  displayed  in  Christ,  he  might  be 
denominated  "  Immanuel,"  a  name  meaning  <  God  is 
with  us.'  * 

In  the  first  part  of  the  discourse  of  our  Saviour  with 
the  Jews,  recorded  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel 
(verses  16 — 30),  which  took  place  after  he  had  excit- 
ed their  enmity   against  him  by  miraculously  curing  a 

*  In  the  usage  supposed,  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  or  for- 
eign from  our  modes  of  expression.  But  in  the  Pentateuch  the 
agent  of  God's  will,  Moses,  is  confounded  with  God  himself  in  a 
very  strange  and  almost  inexplicable  manner;  which  at  least 
illustrates  the  fact,  how  far  we  ought  to  be  from  insisting  upon  the 
bare  letter  of  a  passage,  picked  out  here  and  there,  in  opposition  to 
common  sense  and  the  general  tenor  of  a  writing. 

In  Deuteronomy  xi.  13  — 15,  Moses  is  represented  as  thus  address- 
ing the  Israelites  : 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  if  ye  shall  hearken  diligently  unto 
my  commandments  which  I  command  you  this  day,  to  love  Jehovah, 
your  God,  and  to  serve  him  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all  your  soul, 

that  I  will  give  you  the  rain  of  your  land  in  its  due  season, and  I 

will  send  grass  in  thy  fields." 

Instead  of  "  I  will  give,"  the  Samaritan  text,  the  Septuao-int, 
and  the  Vulgate  here  read  "  He  will  give  "  ;  but  this  reading  appears 
obviously  to  have  been  introduced  to  remove  the  difficulty  of  the 
passage. 

Again  ;  Deuteronomy  xxix.  2,  5,  6. 

li  And  Moses  called  together  all  Israel  and  said  unto  them, I  have 

led  you  forty  years  in  the  wilderness ;  your  clothes  have  not  waxen 
old  upon  you,  nor  your  shoes  waxen  old  upon  your  feet;  ye  have 
not  eaten  bread  nor  drunk  wine  nor  strong  drink ;  that  ye  may  know 
that  I,  Jehovah,  am  your  God." 

Here  the  Samaritan  text  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  ;  the  Septuagint 
in  the  Alexandrine  Ms.,  and  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac  versions,  alter  as 


18S   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

man  on  the  Sabbath,  there  are  expressions  as  strong  as 
are  anywhere  used  concerning  his  authority  as  a  minis- 
ter of  God,  and  concerning  his  religion  as  taught  and 
sanctioned  by  God,  as  a  promulgation  of  the  laws  of 
God's  moral  government.  The  words  of  Christ  were 
bold  end  figurative.  The  style  of  St.  John,  who  has 
reported  them,  is  in  general  obscure,  except  in  mere 
narrative  ;  and  the  same  style  appears  in  his  own  compo- 
sitions and  in  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour  as  recorded 
by  him,  which  differ  in  this  respect  from  those  given  by 

in  the  preceding  passage,  changing  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person 
for  that  of  the  third. 

Once  more  ;  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  22,  23. 

u  Moses,  then,  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it  the 
children  of  Israel. 

"  And  he  gave  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  a  charge,  and  said  ;  Be 
strong  and  of  good  courage  ;  for  thou  shalt  bring  the  children  of  Is- 
rael into  the  land  which  I  sware  unto  them,  and  I  will  be  with 
thee." 

Here  to  avoid  the  difficulty,  the  Septuagint  reads,  "  which  the 
Lord  sware  unto  them,  and  he  will  be  with  thee  "  ;  expressly  ascrib- 
ing the  speech  to  Moses,  as  the  connexion  requires,  and  supplying 
his  name,  thus;  "And  Moses  charged  Joshua."  The  Vulgate  takes 
a  different  course,  ascribing  the  whole  speech  to  Jehovah,  thus, 
"  And  the  Lord  charged  Joshua." 

The  various  readings  of  the  Versions  evidently  deserve  no  consid- 
eration, as  the  origin  of  them  is  apparent.  Whoever  may  look  into 
a  number  of  commentators,  unless  he  be  more  fortunate  than  myself, 
will  be  surprised  to  find,  either  that  these  passages  are  passed  over  in 
Bilence,  or  that  the  attempts  to  explain  them  are  but  slight  and  un- 
satisfactory. How  they  are  to  be  explained,  or  accounted  for,  is  a 
question  which  it  is  not  here  the  place  to  discuss,  and  one  which  it 
is  not  easy  to  answer.  But  it  may  be  remarked  that  if  a  passage 
corresponding  to  them  had  been  found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ, 
it  must  have  appeared,  I  think,  to  a  Trinitarian  a  much  stronger 
argument  than  any  that  can  now  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  deity  of  Christ. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        189 

the  other  three  Evangelists.  It  appears  probable,  there- 
fore, that  St.  John,  preserving  essentially  the  thoughts 
uttered  by  his  Master,  conformed  the  language,  more  or 
less,  to  his  own  modes  of  expression.  The  passage, 
from  these  causes,  is  in  the  original  somewhat  difficult 
to  be  understood  ;  and  in  the  imperfect  and  erroneous 
rendering  of  the  Common  Version,  its  bearing  and  pur- 
pose are  scarcely  to  be  discerned.  As  in  similar  cases, 
the  obscurity  thus  spread  over  it  has  served  to  counte- 
nance the  supposition  that  it  involves  some  mysterious 
meaning.  Yet,  even  as  rendered  in  the  Common  Ver- 
sion, the  passage,  so  far  from  affording  any  proof  of  the 
deity  of  Christ,  presents  only  the  conception  of  his  en- 
tire dependence  upon  God. 

In  order  to  enter  into  its  character  and  purpose,  we 
must  consider  that  the  Jews  in  general,  having  little  moral 
desert  to  recommend  them  to  the  favor  of  God,  placed 
their  reliance  upon  external  ceremonies ;  and  among 
these,  there  was  none  to  which  they  attached  more 
importance  than  a  superstitious  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. The  majority  of  the  Jews  had  that  enmity 
toward  Christ,  which  the  bigots  of  a  false  religion  always 
feel  toward  a  teacher  of  the  truth,  who  discloses  the 
nothingness  and  the  falsehood  of  their  pretensions.  As 
the  descendants  of  Abraham,  as  performing  '  the  works  of 
the  Law,'  which  in  their  view  were  little  more  than 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Law,  as  God's  chosen  people, 
they  considered  themselves  as  holy,  and  looked  upon 
Christ  as  a  profane  heresiarch.  Their  feelings  toward 
him  were  such  as  in  the  fifteenth  century  might  have 
been  excited  among  the  members  of  the  Romish  Church 
in  any  Catholic  country,  by  one  openly  teaching,  I  do 


190        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

not  say  Protestantism,  but  pure  Christianity,  the  essen- 
tial truths  of  religion  and  morals,  and  fearlessly  reprov- 
ing the  vices,  superstitions,  and  hypocrisy  of  the  age. 
They  regarded  him,  as  such  a  reformer  would  have 
been  regarded,  as  an  enemy  of  God  ;  for  if  he  were 
not  at  enmity  with  God,  they  were. 

In  opposition  to  this  state  of  feeling  among  them, 
our  Saviour  used  the  strongest  expressions  to  declare, 
that  he  was  acting  wholly  under  the  guidance  of  God, 
and  that  his  authority  was  the  authority  of  God.  It  is 
an  obvious  remark,  though  it  may  be  worth  pointing  out, 
that  the  expressions  of  the  most  absolute  dependence 
upon  God,  and  the  boldest  assertions  of  divine  authority, 
amount  to  the  same  thing,  and  occur  indiscriminately  in 
his  discourses.  So  far  as  he  was  a  mere  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  God,  so  far  was  his  authority  identical 
with  that  of  God.  These  considerations  will  perhaps 
explain  the  general  character  of  the  passage  we  are 
considering,  which  may  be  thus  rendered  : 

"  Upon  this  the  Jews   came  in   pursuit  of  Jesus,  be- 
cause he  had  done  thus  upon  the  Sabbath.     Then  Jesus 
said  to  them,  My  Father  has  been  working  hitherto  as 
I   am  working.     Then,  for  this,  the   Jews  were    more 
bent  upon  killing  him ;  because  he  had  not  only  broken 
the    Sabbath,   but   spoken  of   God    as  particularly    his 
Father,  putting  himself  on  an  equality  with  God.     Then 
Jesus  said  to  them,  I  tell  you  in   truth  the  Son  can  do 
nothing  of  himself,  but  only  what  he  sees  his   Father 
doing  ;  for  it   is  what  he   does,  that  the  Son  is  doing 
like  him.     For  the  Father  loves  the  Son  and  directs  him 
in  all  that  he  does ;  and  will  direct  him  in  greater  works 
than  these,  to  your  astonishment.     For  as  the  Father 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         191 

raises  the  dead,  and  gives  them  life,  so  also  the  Son  gives 
life  to  whom  he  will.  Nor  does  the  Father  condemn 
any,  but  has  committed  all  condemnation  to  the  Son ; 
so  that  the  Son  is  to  be  honored  by  all  as  they  honor 
the  Father.  He  who  honors  not  the  Son,  honors  not 
the  Father  who  sent  him.  I  tell  you  in  truth,  he  who 
listens  to  my  words  and  puts  his  trust  in  him  who  sent 
me,  has  eternal  life,  and  shall  not  come  under  condem- 
nation ;  but  has  passed  from  death  to  life.  I  tell  you  in 
truth,  that  the  hour  is  coming,  nay,  it  has  come,  when 
the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
they  who  listen  to  it  shall  live.  For  as  the  Father  is  the 
fountain  of  life,  so  has  he  given  to  the  Son  to  be  the 
fountain  of  life  ;  and  he  has  intrusted  him  with  authori- 
ty to  pass  condemnation  also,  because  he  is  the  Man. 
Be  not  astonished  at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  coming  in 
which  all  who  are  in  their  sepulchres  shall  hear  his 
voice,  and  come  forth ;  those  who  have  done  good  to 
the  resurrection  of  life,  and  those  who  have  done  evil  to 
the  resurrection  of  condemnation.  Of  myself  I  can  do 
nothing,  I  condemn  as  I  am  directed,  and  my  condemna- 
tion is  just ;  for  I  regard  not  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
him  who  sent  me." 

We  will  now  attend  to  some  passages  in  this  discourse, 
which  require  or  admit  further  illustration.  The  Jews, 
exasperated  against  Jesus,  had  represented  him  to  them- 
selves, as  one  who  impiously  impugned  the  authority 
of  their  Law,  having  openly  manifested  his  contempt  for 
it  by  a  wanton  violation  of  the  Sabbath.  The  immedi- 
ate purport  of  the  first  address  of  our  Saviour  to  them 
may  be  thus  expressed  ;  I  am  executing  the  works  of 
God,  to  whom  my  relation  is  like  that  of  a  son  to  a 


192    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

father;  and  as  the  immediate  works  of  God  are  not 
suspended  from  a  regard  to  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath, 
neither  is  there  reason  that  mine  should  be :  "  My  Fa- 
ther has  been  working  hitherto  as  I  am  working." 
The  ultimate  object  of  these  words  was  to  affirm,  in  a 
manner  very  striking,  at  once  from  its  indirectness  and 
its  brevity,  that  he  was  acting  as  the  minister  of  God 
with  his  full  approbation  and  authority.  The  Jews  did 
not  familiarly  speak  of  God  as  their  father ;  and  when 
Jesus  called  him  "  my  Father,"  they  understood  him  at 
once  as  meaning  to  express,  that  his  relation  to  God 
was  different  from  that  of  all  other  men.  They  under- 
stood, likewise,  that  he  "put  himself  on  an  equality 
with  God,"  in  implying,  that  he  was  no  more  bound  by 
a  regard  to  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  than  God  by  whose 
authority  he  acted. 

There  is  nothing,  I  think,  in  what  follows  that  requires 
particular  explanation  till  we  come  to  the  words  ;  "  As 
the  Father  raises  the  dead  and  gives  them  life,  so  also 
the  Son  gives  life  to  whom  he  will."  With  £<«?},  '  life, "in 
the  New  Testament,  the  idea  of  happiness  is  associated. 
c  Eternal  life,'  for  example,  denotes  eternal  happiness. 
The  meaning  of  Christ,  then,  in  these  words  may  be 
thus  expressed  ;  The  Father  raises  the  dead  to  a  new 
and  happy  state  of  being ;  but  in  this  work  he  has  ap- 
pointed the  Son  as  his  minister,  who  by  his  religion 
affords  the  means  of  securing  this  blessedness,  which 
will  be  conferred  on  all  his  followers  without  exception, 
as  if  by  his  own  act  and  will. 

H  Nor  does  the  Father  condemn  any,  but  has  com- 
mitted all  condemnation  to  the  Son."  This  language, 
it  is    obvious,    must   on    any    supposition    be    regarded 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    193 

ed  as  figurative.  What  was  meant  by  it  is,  that  Christ, 
being  the  teacher  of  that  religion  through  which  the  laws 
and  sanctions  of  God's  moral  government  are  made 
known,  might  be  regarded  as  the  minister  of  God  ap- 
pointed to  pronounce  the  sentence  of  condemnation  on 
all  exposed  to  it.  He  condemned  only  those  whom 
God  condemned,  and  he  condemned  all  those  whom  God 
condemned.  It  is  as  such  a  minister  that  he  afterward 
represents  himself,  when  he  says,  "  I  condemn  as  I  am 
directed."  At  the  close  of  the  discourse  (verse  45), 
dropping  this  figure,  he  represents  God  in  person  as  the 
judge  who  passes  sentence ;  "  Think  not,"  he  says, 
"  that  I  will  accuse  you  before  the  Father ;  there  is  one 
who  is  accusing  you,  Moses  in  whom  ye  have  trusted." 
In  another  discourse  (Ch.  xii.  47.)  he  explains  what  is 
meant  by  him,  when  he  speaks  of  judging  and  con- 
demning men.  It  signifies  that  men  will  be  judged  and 
condemned  according  to  those  laws  and  sanctions  of 
moral  conduct  which  he  has  made  known  to  them  in  his 
religion  ;  "  If  any  one  hear  my  words  and  regard  them 
not,  I  do  not  condemn  him  ;  for  I  have  not  come  to  con- 
demn the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  But  there  is  a 
condemner  for  him  who  rejects  me,  and  receives  not 
my  words.  The  doctrine  i  have  taught  will  con- 
demn him  hereafter." 

In  the  discourse  before  us,  our  Saviour  used  the  words 
on  which  we  are  remarking,  in  reference  to  the  Jews, 
his  enemies,  who  considered  themselves  as  secure  of  not 
being  condemned  by  God,  however  their  characters  and 
conduct  might  be  condemned  by  Jesus.  It  will  be,  he 
gives  them  to  understand,  as  if  all  condemnation  were 
committed  to  the  Son. 
17 


194        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

"  I  tell  you  in  truth,  he  who  listens  to  my  words  and 
puts  his  trust  in  him  who  sent  me,  has  eternal  life,  and 
shall  not    come    under  condemnation ;  but   has  passed 
from   death   to  life."     The  punishment  of  sin    is   often 
represented  in  the   New  Testament  under  the  figure  of 
death.     Death  is  regarded  as  the  most  severe  of  human 
punishments,  and   commonly  apprehended  as  the  great- 
est of  the  inevitable  evils  of  our  present  state ;  except 
when  this  apprehension  is   done   away  by  the  faith  and 
hopes  of  a  Christian.     To  his  view,  indeed,  it  changes 
its  aspect.     To  him  it  is  a  deliverance  from  the  thraldom 
of  this   life,  and  a  rapid   and  glorious   advance  in  that 
course  of  progression  and  blessedness  on  which  he   has 
entered.     It  is  no  interruption  of  that   eternal  life, 
which  he  has  commenced.     According;  to  the   common 
apprehension  of  death,  "  he  shall    never   die."     But  to 
the  sinner  death  appears  under  an  opposite  aspect.     The 
natural  dread  of  it  is  not  alleviated  by  any  rational  hope 
of  a  happier  life  to  follow  it.     On  the  contrary,  it  is  the 
commencement  of  that  state  in  which  the  tendencies  of 
his  evil  dispositions  will  be   more   fully  developed,  and 
their  consequences  more  bitterly  felt.     Now  to  the  dis- 
pensations of  the  future  life,  Christ  always  refers  as  the 
great  sanctions  of  his  religion.     Death,  then,  being  the 
termination   of  all    sinful    gratifications,  and    the    com- 
mencement   of  future    punishment,  for  this    reason,    in 
connexion  with  those  before  mentioned,  is  employed,  by 
an  obvious  figure,  to  represent  the  whole  punishment  of 
sin ;  and  those  who  lie  exposed  to  this  punishment  are, 
by    a   figure    equally   obvious,    spoken    of    as    already 
"  dead  ' ;  as  the  good  are  spoken  of  as  already  in  pos- 
session of  "  eternal  life."     Thus  too  we  may  perceive, 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    195 

why  death,  presenting  itself  under  such  opposite  aspects 
to  the  one  class  and  to  the  other,  is  represented,  thou°h 
common  to  all,  as  the  punishment  of  the  wicked. 

"  I  tell  you  in  truth,  that  the  hour  is  coming,  nay,  it 
has  come,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  those  who  listen  to  it  shall  live."  The 
discourse  of  our  Saviour  has  been  misunderstood  from 
inattention  to  the  causes  why  sinners  are  metaphorically 
called  by  him  "  dead."  It  has  been  thought  to  be  on 
account  of  the  deadness  of  their  moral  principles  and 
affections.  Hence  some  commentators  have  supposed, 
that  there  is  in  this  discourse  a  series  of  harsh  transitions, 
from  the  literally  dead  who  are  raised  to  life  by  the 
Father,  to  the  morally  dead  spoken  of  in  the  words  last 
quoted,  and  then  again  to  the  proper  dead  "  who  are 
in  their  sepulchres."  Others  have  explained  the  words 
just  quoted  as  referring  to  the  literally  dead  who  were 
raised  to  life  by  our  Saviour  during  his  ministry,  though 
no  corresponding  meaning  can  be  put  upon  his  language 
immediately  preceding,  in  which  he  speaks  of  those  who 
have  "  passed  from  death  to  life,"  and  the  explanation 
is,  at  the  same  time,  foreign  from  the  purpose  and  con- 
nexion of  the  discourse,  and  inconsistent  with  the  anti- 
thetical opposition  which  runs  through  it  between  the 
two  general  classes,  of  the  dead,  and  of  those  who  have 
eternal  life.  Others,  still,  by  a  far  more  extravagant 
interpretation,  have  understood  Jesus,  when  he  speaks  of 
those  in  their  sepulchres  who  shall  hear  his  voice  and 
live,  to  refer  only  to  the  morally  dead,  and,  consequent- 
ly, to  describe  only  a  moral  resurrection.  The  true 
meaning  of  the  words  we  are  considering,  I  conceive  to 
be,  that  Christ  had  come  to  call  sinners  to  reformation  ; 


196        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

that  those  who  lay  exposed  to  death  with  all  its  fearful 
consequences,  "  the  dead,"  as  they  are  figuratively  called, 
would  hear  his  voice  ;  and  that  those  who  listened  to  it 
would  be  delivered  from  death  as  an  evil,  and  have 
only  to  look  forward  to  life  and  blessedness. 

"The  Father  has  intrusted  him  with  authority  to 
pass  condemnation  also,  because  he  is  the  Man."  The 
rendering  of  the  last  words  needs  explanation.  In  the 
Oriental  languages,  the  term,  '  son  of  man '  was  used 
simply  as  equivalent  to  'man.'  Of  this,  as  everyone 
knows,  there  are  many  examples  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament.  In  the  Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  this  periphrasis  not  unfrequently  occurs 
where  only  the  word  ar^gconog,  'man,'  is  used  in 
the  original.  In  this,  which  is,  I  conceive,  the  only 
sense  of  the  term,  it  was  used  by  Christ,  concerning 
himself.  e  The  Son  of  Man  '  means  nothing  more  than 
'  the  Man.'  Why  he  so  designated  himself,  has  not,  I 
think,  been  satisfactorily  explained.  It  may  be  account- 
ed for  by  the  state  of  things  which  has  been  already 
referred  to.  *  The  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  a  dan- 
gerous topic  of  discourse.  He  would,  consequently,  be 
designated  by  ambiguous  titles  ;  and  such  language 
would  naturally  be  used,  as ;  <  When  the  man  [the  Son 
of  Man]  comes  '  ;  c  the  man  will  deliver  us.'  Hence 
this  term,  I  imagine,  came  to  signify  the  Messiah,  but 
somewhat  ambiguously.  The  uncertainty  of  its  appli- 
cation might  be  increased,  when  our  Saviour  entered  on 
his  ministry  ;  for  he,  simply  as  an  individual  exciting 
such   strong   and   general   interest   and  curiosity  by  his 

*  See  before,  p.  177. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         197 

miracles  and  doctrine,  would,  we  may  easily  suppose, 
be  designated  as  '  the  Man.5  *  A  term  which  thus 
strongly  intimated,  but  did  not  directly  express,  his 
claim  to  be  that  great  minister  of  God  whom  the  Jews 
had  been  expecting,  was  well  suited  to  the  circumstan- 
ces in  which  he  was  placed ;  and  was,  in  consequence, 
adopted  by  him  as  a  title  appropriate  to  himself.  With 
these  views,  I  would  not  however  object  to  the  common 
rendering,  "  the  Son  of  Man,"  if  it  be  so  familiar  as  to 
make  a  change  unpleasant,  except  in  passages  like  that 
before  us,  in  which,  by  giving  a  verbal  instead  of  a  true 
rendering,  the  sense  is  obscured.  "  God,"  says  our 
Saviour  in  this  passage,  "  has  intrusted  me  with  authori- 
ty to  pass  condemnation,  because  I  am  the  Man  "  ;  in- 
tending by  this  to  express  in  language  which  somewhat 
veiled  his  meaning,  that  he  was  that  last  minister  of  God 
whom  the  Jews  had  hoped  for  under  the  name  of  c  the 
Messiah,'  or  '  the  Anointed.'  Messiah,  or  Anointed,  it 
may  be  observed,  is  a  common  name  as  well  as  Man; 
and  the  former  term,  equally  with  the  latter,  could  be- 
come the  designation  of  a  particular  individual  only  from 
the  manner  of  its  application. 

"  Be  not  astonished  at  this ;  for  the  hour  is  coming  in 
which  all  who  are  in  their  sepulchres  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  come  forth  ;  those  who  have  done  good,  to  the  resur- 
rection of  life,  and  those  who  have  done  evil,  to  the  resur- 
rection of  condemnation."  The  meaning  of  our  Saviour 
may  be  thus  expressed ;  Be  not  astonished  at  what  I 

*  We  may  observe  an  analogous  use  of  language  in  the  first  Epistle 
of  John,  in  which  Christ  is  designated  simply  by  the  pronoun  '  He/ 
without  any  previous  mention  of  his  name  to  which  the  prououn  can 
refer.     See  Ch.  ii.  12.     Ch.  iii.  5,  7,  16. 
17* 


198        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

have  told  you,  that  God  has  appointed  me  as  his  minis- 
ter, to  announce  whom  he  approves,  and  whom  he  con- 
demns, and  to  afford  to  all  the  means  of  passing  from 
death  to  life  ;  —  Be  not  astonished  at  this,  for,  in  truth, 
the  future  condition  of  all  will  be  determined  by  their 
obedience  or  disobedience  to  the  laws  of  my  religion, 
which  are  the  laws  of  God.  They  shall  be  judged  by 
this  standard,  as  if  they  were  called  from  their  sepul- 
chres by  my  voice  to  be  judged  in  person  by  me.  This 
mode  of  understanding  the  passage  will  be  still  further 
illustrated  by  what  follows. 

It  is  a  common  figure  in  the  New  Testament  to  speak 
of  Christ  personally,  when  his  religion,  under  some  one 
of  its  aspects,  effects,  or  relations  is  intended  ;  and  this 
is  sometimes  done  when  the  expression  is  such  as  our 
use  of  language  does  not  allow.  St.  Paul  addresses 
the  Colossians,  according  to  a  verbal  rendering,  thus 
( ii.  6,  7. )  ;  "  As  then  ye  have  received  Christ 
Jesus,  walk  in  him,  rooted  and  grounded  in  him."  He 
exhorts  them  (iii.  13.)  to  forgive  each  other,  "  as  Christ 
had  forgiven  them "  ;  not  referring  to  any  forgiveness 
from  Christ  in  person,  but  to  the  forgiveness  of  their 
past  sins  upon  their  becoming  sincere  Christians.  He 
says  to  the  churches  addressed  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  churches  to  which  Jesus  had  never  preached 
(iv.  20,  21)  ;  "  Ye  have  not  so  learnt  Christ,  since  ye 
have  heard  him  and  been  taught  by  him  as  the  truth  is 
in  Jesus."  He  speaks  to  the  Romans  of  the  "  spirit  of 
Christ,"  that  is  '  the  spirit  of  Christianity '  dwelling  in 
them ;  and  the  expression,  "  that  Christ  may  dwell  in 
your  hearts,"  is  elsewhere  (Ephesians  iii.   17.)  used  by 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    199 

him.  He  writes  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Ep.  xv.  18.) 
of  those  "  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,"  meaning, 
those  who  have  died  '  being  Christians  ' ;  for  "  to  be  in 
Christ "  is  a  common  phrase  in  his  epistles  for  '  being  a 
Christian.'  He  tells  the  Philippians  (i.  8.), "  God  is  my 
witness  how  earnestly  I  love  you  all  ev  anldyxvoig  Xqlotov 
'Irjoov,  words  which,  from  the  difference  in  our  modes  of 
expression,  do  not  admit  of  a  verbal  translation  into  our 
language  ;  but  the  meaning  of  which  is  i  with  Christian 
tenderness.'  Again  he  says  to  them  (i.  21.)  "  For  to 
me  life  is  Christ,  and  death  is  gain  "  ;  that  is,  '  my  life 
is  devoted  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  to  the  promotion  of 
his  religion.'  In  the  same  epistle  (iii.  S.)  are  these 
words;  "I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  these  things,  count- 
ing them  but  as  refuse,  that  I  might  win  Christ,"  where 
the  expression,  "  to  win  Christ,"  means  i  to  secure  the 
blessings  of  Christianity.'  To  the  Galatians,  he  writes 
(iii.  27,  28.),  Whoever  has  "been  baptized  to  Christ, 
has  put  on  Christ "  ;  that  is,  as  appears  from  the  con- 
nexion, '  is  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  a  Christian.' 
The  Apostle  proceeds  ;  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Gentile,  neither  slave  nor  freeman,  neither  male  nor  fe- 
male; but  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus,"  — '  ye  are  all 
on  an  equality  as  Christians.'  So  also  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of  "  Jesus  Christ  the 
same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever,"  intending  by  those 
words  to  express  the  unchangeableness  of  Christian  truth. 
I  have,  perhaps,  brought  together  more  examples  than 
are  necessary,  of  a  common  form  of  expression.  Our 
Saviour  himself  uses  language  in  a  similar  manner.  By 
a  figure  of  speech,  he  refers  to  himself  personally  the 
effects  of  his  religion,  the   divine  power  exerted  in  its 


200        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

establishment,  and  the  operation  of  those  laws  of  God's 
moral  government  which  it  announces.  Thus  he  says 
(Matth.  x.  34.)  ;  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  bring  peace 
to  the  earth ;  I  came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword." 
So  also  in  Luke  (xii.  49.) ;  "  I  came  to  bring  fire  to  the 
earth ;  and  what  would  I  ?  That  it  were  already- 
kindled."  In  these  passages,  every  one  understands 
that  our  Saviour  speaks  of  the  effects  of  his  religion,  and 
not  of  any  thing  to  be  accomplished  by  his  immediate 
agency.  In  like  manner,  when  he  declares  that  he  has 
come  "  to  save  the  world,"  he  refers  to  the  power  of 
his  religion  in  delivering  men  from  ignorance,  error,  sin, 
and  their  attendant  evils.  "  God,"  it  is  said,  "  did  not 
send  his  son  into  the  world  to  pass  condemnation  on  the 
world ;  but  that  the  world  through  him  may  be  saved. 
He  who  puts  his  trust  in  him  is  not  exposed  to  condem- 
nation. He  who  rejects  him  is  already  condemned  ;  be- 
cause he  has  not  given  credit  to  the  only  son  of  God. 
The  condemnation  of  men  is  this,  that  light  has  come 
into  the  world,  and  they  have  preferred  darkness  to 
light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil."  #  This  passage 
shows  how  men  are  to  be  saved  by  Christ,  namely,  by 
their  own  act  in  believing  and  obeying  him ;  and  is  also 
one  of  those  which  explain  what  is  meant  by  his  figura- 
tive language  when  he  speaks  of  judging  and  condemning 
men. 

"  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life."  f  In  what 
sense  our  Saviour  used  these  sublime  words  may  appear 
from  what  immediately  follows.  "  He  who  puts  his 
trust  in  me,  though  he  die,  shall  live  ;  and  he  who  lives 

*  John  iii.  17—19.  t  John  xi.  25. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    201 

through  his  faith  in  me,  shall  never  die."  Christ  is  the 
resurrection  and  the  life,  because  through  faith  in  him, 
through  a  practical  belief  of  the  truths  which  he  taught, 
eternal  life  is  to  be  obtained.  Thus  he  afterwards  says 
(John  xii.  49,  50.);  "  I  teach  not  from  myself;  but  the 
Father  who  sent  me  has  commanded  me  what  I  should  say, 
and  what  I  should  teach ;  and  1  know  that  what  he 
has  commanded  is  eternal  life  ;  "  that  is,  it  affords  the 
means  of  attaining  eternal  life. 

He  says  to  the  Jews  in  reference  to  those  Gentiles 
who  would  embrace  his  religion  (John  x.  16)  ;  "I  have 
other  sheep,  who  are  not  of  this  fold ;  those  also  I  must 
bring  in  ;  and  they  will  hear  my  voice ;  and  there  will 
be  one  flock  and  one  shepherd."  In  these  words  he 
does  not  mean  to  assert  his  own  personal  agency  in  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles  ;  they  were  not  literally  to 
hear  his  voice ;  but  they  were  to  be  converted  by  the 
preaching  of  his  religion.  There  is  a  similar  figure  in 
the  words  (John  xii.  32.),  "  And  I,  though  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  to  me." 

In  his  most  affecting  conversation  with  his  disciples, 
the  evening  before  his  crucifixion,  he  tells  them  (John 
xiv.  18,  19.),  "  I  will  not  leave  you  as  orphans,  I  will 
come  to  you.  A  little  while  hence,  and  the  world  will 
see  me  no  more  ;  but  ye  shall  see  me ;  because  I  am 
blessed,  ye  shall  be  blessed  also."  Here,  as  I  have  be- 
fore had  occasion  to  explain,  *  our  Saviour  refers,  not  to 
any  personal  presence  with  his  disciples,  but  to  his 
presence  with  them  in  the  power  of  his  religion,  his  pres- 
ence to  their  minds  and  hearts. 

*  See  before,  pp.  158,  159,  note. 


202        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

In  other  instances,  Jesus  uses  what  may  be  technically 
called  l  an  equivalent  figure,'  by  which  I  mean  figura- 
tive language  not  intended  to  correspond  to  the  real 
state  of  things,  except  so  far  as  to  produce  an  effect  up- 
on the  mind  equivalent  to  what  that  might  produce  if 
distinctly  apprehended.  Thus  he  tells  his  disciples  (John 
xiv.  2,  3.),  "  There  are  many  rooms  in  my  Father's 
house.  Were  it  not  so,  I  had  told  you.  I  am  going  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you.  And  when  I  have  gone  and 
prepared  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come  again  and  take  you 
with  me,  that  where  I  am,  you  may  be  also."  When 
Jesus  thus  speaks  of  preparing  a  place  for  his  disciples, 
and,  after  preparation,  returning  to  take  them  with  him, 
he  uses  figurative  terms  which  do  not  admit  of  being 
transformed  into  literal.  The  general  effect  of  the  lan- 
guage, its  aggregate  significance,  if  I  may  so  speak,  is 
alone  to  be  regarded.  The  meaning  is  ;  Your  future 
blessedness  will  be  as  great,  and  is  as  certain,  as  if  it  were 
prepared  for  you  by  me,  your  master  and  friend,  and 
you  were  assured  that  I  should  return  in  person  to  con- 
duct you  to  it. 

In  a  similar  manner  we  are  to  understand  another  dec- 
laration of  Jesus,  already  noticed,  which  has  been  errone- 
ously explained  (Matth.  xviii.  19,  20.);  "Again;  I 
tell  you,  that  if  two  of  you  agree  on  earth  concern- 
ing every  thing  which  they  may  ask,  their  prayers  will 
be  granted  by  my  Father  in  Heaven ;  for  where  two 
or  three  are  assembled  in  my  cause,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  of  them."  By  this,  as  I  have  said,  *  our  Sav- 
iour intended   that  the   prayers  of  his  followers   for  the 

*  See  before,  p.  159. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         203 

promotion  of  his  cause,  for  the  guidance  and  aid  neces- 
sary to  them  as  his  ministers,  would  be  granted  as  if  they 
were  his  own,  as  if  he  himself  were  prayino-  with  them. 

In  order  to  explain  some  other  passages  in  which  our 
Saviour  speaks  figuratively  of  his  personal  agency,  it  is 
necessary  to  attend  to  a  new  consideration.  The  Jews 
had  been  accustomed  to  designate  the  dispensation  which 
they  expected  from  their  Messiah,  as  c  the  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah,'  or  (  the  kingdom  of  God/  or  '  of  Heaven.' 
This  language,  though  the  conceptions  which  they  had  at- 
tached to  it  were  erroneous,  was  such,  as  taken  in  a  figura- 
tive sense,  might  well  describe  the  Christian  dispensation. 
It  was  adopted,  therefore,  by  our  Saviour,  and  after  him 
by  his  Apostles  ;  and  to  this  leading  metaphor  of  a  king- 
dom, much  of  the  figurative  language  throughout  the 
New  Testament  is  conformed.  The  establishment  of 
Christianity  in  the  world  is  spoken  of  by  Christ  as  the 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  or  reign  of  the  Messiah  or 
of  God.  This  event  he  describes,  figuratively,  as  '  his 
coming  to  reign,'  or  simply  as  '  his  coming,'  that  is,  his 
manifestation  to  men  in  his  true  character. 

Thus  we  find  the  following  language  (Matth.  xvi.  27, 
28)  ;  "For  the  Son  of  Man  is  coming  with  the  glory 
of  his  Father,  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  he  will  render 
to  every  one  according  to  his  deeds.  I  tell  you  in  truth, 
there  are  some  of  those  standing  here,  who  shall  not 
taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  to 
reign."  The  literal  meaning  of  these  words  may  be  thus 
given ;  The  kingdom  of  Heaven,  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, shall  be  established  by  a  glorious  display  of  the 
power  of  God  ;  and  being  established,  men  shall  be 
rewarded  or   punished  as   their  actions   conform  to  its 


204   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

laws  ;  every  one  shall  be  judged  by  the  laws  of  its  king, 
the  Son  of  Man  ;  and  the  establishment  of  Christianity 
in  the  world  shall  be  made  secure  and  evident  during 
the  life  time  of  some  of  those  now  present. 

He  shall  come  "  with  his  angels,"  that  is  the  angels  of 
God.  Angels  were  conceived  of  by  the  Jews  as  minis- 
ters of  God's  providence  ;  and  Christ,  conforming  his 
language  to  their  conceptions,  repeatedly  speaks  of  the 
ministry  of  angels,  figuratively,  to  denote  some  manisfesta- 
tion  of  the  power  of  God.  Thus  he  tells  Nathanael 
(John  i.  52.),  "  Ye  shall  see  heaven  opened  and  the 
angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  to  the  Son  of 
Man  ;  "  meaning,  Ye  shall  witness  manifest  proof  of 
the  relation  existing  between  God  and  me,  his  minister. 
When  our  Saviour  speaks  of  his  coming  with  the  glory 
of  God  and  his  angels,  he  does  not  mean  by  these  figures 
to  express,  that  he  himself  will  appear  in  person  with 
some  visible  and  splendid  display  ;  his  meaning  is  as  has 
been  explained ;  corresponding  to  what  he  elsewhere  says 
(Luke  xvii.  20,  21.),  "The  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  not  to  be  observed  ;  nor  will  men  say,  Behold, 
it  is  here,  or,  Behold,  it  is  there ;  for,  behold,  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  within  you." 

In  relation  to  this  subject,  there  are  still  other  facts  to 
be  attended  to.  With  the  establishment  of  Christianity 
was  connected  the  punishment  of  the  Jews  for  their 
rejection  of  Christ.  They,  in  return,  were  rejected  by 
God.  The  peculiar  relation  which  they  had  held 
toward  him  was  publicly  abrogated.  As  a  nation  they 
ceased  to  exist.  Their  country  was  ravaged,  they  were 
destroyed,  or  forced  from  it  into  slavery  or  exile ;  Jerusa- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   205 

lem  was  laid  waste,  and  the  temple  burnt  and  thrown 
down.  How  the  establishment  of  Christianity  was 
connected  with  these  events,  we  shall  perceive  if  we 
consider,  that  the  Jews  had  been  separated  by  God  from 
other  nations,  to  be  the  subjects  of  a  special  dispensation, 
by  which  he  was  made  known  to  them,  and  they  were 
called  to  worship  him.  They  were,  in  an  obvious  sense 
of  the  words,  his  chosen  people.  But,  in  rejecting 
Christ  and  refusing  to  obey  him,  they  had  virtually 
renounced  their  allegiance  to  God.  They  had  dissolved 
by  their  own  act  the  connexion  that  had  existed  between 
him  and  them.  They  had,  if  one  may  so  speak,  put  the 
question  at  issue,  whether  they  were  still  in  favor  with 
God,  still  his  peculiar  people,  and  Christ  were  a  blas- 
phemous impostor  speaking  falsely  in  the  name  of  God, 
as  they  had  declared  him  to  be ;  or  whether  Christ 
spoke  with  divine  authority,  and  they  consequently  had 
refused  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  God.  The  pecu- 
liar relation  that  had  existed  between  God  and  them  was 
recognised  by  Christ  himself;  to  them  he  was  immediate- 
ly sent ;  his  claims  were  in  the  first  instance  submitted 
to  them  ;  and  they  had  rejected  him  as  a  false  Messiah. 
The  question  thus  at  issue  must,  it  would  seem, 
receive  a  public  and  solemn  decision,  before  the  evi- 
dence of  Christianity  could  be  considered  as  complete  ; 
and  this  decision  was  made  by  God  in  the  rejection  and 
punishment  of  the  nation. 

This  punishment,  it  is  further  to  be  recollected,  had 

been  announced  by  Christ.     He  had  thus  suspended  the 

completion  of  the  full  evidence  of  his  divine  mission  till 

the  accomplishment  of  his  prophecy.     When  that  took 

18 


206        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

place  the  series  of  proofs  might  be  considered  as  closed. 
and  his  religion  as  established. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Jews  were  the  bitter  enemies  of 
Christianity  ;  and  it  was  against  persecution  from  them 
alone,  that  the  religion  had  first  to  struggle.  In  their 
opposition  to  it  they  had  a  vantage  ground  which  none  of 
its  subsequent  enemies  possessed.  They  claimed  to 
know  the  character  and  purposes  of  God,  and  to  be  the 
proper  judges  of  a  prophet  pretending  to  be  sent  from 
him  to  their  nation.  In  the  view  of  many  Gentiles,  the 
question  at  issue  between  the  Jews  and  Christ  was, 
without  doubt,  regarded  as  "  a  question  of  their  own 
superstition,"  *  which  it  was  for  them  to  decide.  Now 
from  this  opposition  and  persecution,  of  a  nature  to  be 
so  injurious  to  the  growth  of  the  new  religion,  Christiani- 
ty was  relieved  by  the  destruction  of  the  nation.  It  no 
longer  appeared  as  an  off-shoot  from  Judaism,  but 
assumed  its  independent  character,  not  deriving  support 
from  the  preceding  dispensation,  but  throwing  back 
evidence  upon  it. 

Thus  it  appears,  in  what  manner  the  establishment  of 
Christianity  was  connected  with  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  nation  ;  and  why  our  Savionr  sometimes  speaks 
of  the  events  as  simultaneous.  This  is  the  case  through- 
out the  prophecy  in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Mat- 
thew, so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  calamities  coming  upon 
the  Jews.  In  this  there  are  some  passages  that  striking- 
ly illustrate  the  modes  of  expression  elsewhere  used  by 
Christ.  He  evidently  speaks  of  his  own  coming  and 
presence,  figuratively,  in  the  Oriental  language  of  poetry 

*  Acts  xxv.  19.  comp.  xviii.  15. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    207 

and  prophecy  ;  and  in  the  same  use  of  language  refers 
to  his  own  personal  agency,  events  which  were  not  to 
be  effected  by  it,  but  were  to  be  accomplished  in  his 
cause  by  God. 

After-  warning  his  disciples  against  being  deceived  by 
those  who  would  falsely  claim  the  character  of  the  Mes- 
siah, (his  character,  I  conceive,  as  a  deliverer  from  the 
tyranny  of  the  Romans),  he  says;  ".If  then  they  say  to 
you,  Behold  he  [the  Messiah]  is  in  some  solitary  place ; 
go  not  forth ;  Behold  he  is  to  a  secret  chamber  ;  do  not 
believe  them ;  for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  will  be 
like  the  lightning  which  flashes  from  the  east  to  the 
west,"  * —  as  apparent  and  splendid.  The  meaning  is, 
:  For  the  evidence  which  God  will  afford  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  my  religion  will  be  the  most  conspicuous  and 
unequivocal.' 

In  what  immediately  follows,  after  predicting  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  Jewish  nation  in  language  of  which  we 
have  abundant  examples  in  the  Hebrew  prophets,  that 
is,  in  the  strongest  figures  representing  a  day  of  utter 
darkness,!  he  proceeds;  "  Then  will  the  sign  of  the 

*  Matth.  xxiv.  26,  27. 

t '  A  day  of  darkness  '  is  an  obvious  figure  for  '  a  day  of  distress.' 
Hence,  in  the  Oriental  style,  a  time  of  utter  calamity,  the  destruction 
of  a  nation,  is  described  by  the  extinction  of  the  sun  and  the  other 
lights  of  heaven.  Thus  Isaiah  (xiii.  9,  10.),  in  speaking  of  the  de- 
struction of  Babylon,  says; 

"  Behold  the  day  of  Jehovah  is  coming,  cruel  with  wrath  and  fierce 
anger,  to  lay  the  land  desolate  and  to  destroy  its  sinners  out  of  it. 

"  For  the  stars  of  heaven  and  its  constellations  shall  not  give  their 
light,  the  sun  shall  be  darkened  in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon 
shall  not  cause  her  light  to  shine." 

So  also  Ezekiel,  describing  the  fall  of  Egypt  ;  (xxxii.  7,  8.) 

"  And  when  I  shall  put   thee  out,  I  will  cover  the  heaven,  and 


208   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT". 

Son  of  Man  appear  in  heaven ;  and  then  will  all  the 
tribes  of  the  land  lament,  when  they  see  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  great  power  and 
glory."  The  Jews  had  repeatedly  demanded  of  Christ 
a  sign  from  heaven  :  that  is,  a  miracle  conspicuous  in 
the  heavens,  or  apparently  having  its  origin  there.  This, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  they  pretended  to  regard 
as  what  might  afford  clear  proof  of  his  being  the  Mes- 
siah, such  proof  as  his  other  works  did  not  furnish. 
They  made  the  refusal  of  this  sign  one  main  pretext  of 
their  unbelief :  "  The  Jews,'7  says  St.  Paul,  "demand 
signs."  #  In  St.  John's  Gospel  the  Jews  are  represent- 
ed as  comparing  Christ  with  Moses,  and  asking  ;  "  What 
sign  dost  thou  show  us,  that  we  may  give  thee  credit  ? 
What  dost  thou  perform?  Our  fathers  eat  manna  in  the 
wilderness,  as  it  is  written,  He  gave  them  bread  from 
heaven  to  eat.,}-\  It  is  in  reference,  I  think,  to  this 
demand  of  the  Jews,  that  our  Saviour  says,  "Then  will 
the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  appear  in  heaven"  ;  intend- 
ing by  these  words,  that  the  most  conspicuous  proof 
would  then  be  given  of  his  divine  mission.  This  proof, 
he  expresses  in  what  follows,  should  be  a  display  of 
God's  providence  in  the  establishment  of  his  religion, 
which  should  cause  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  to 
lament.     It  would  be  his  triumph  and  their  desolation. 

make  its  stars  dark.  I  will  cover  the  sun  with  a  cloud,  and  the 
moon  shall  not  give  her  light;  all  the  bright  lights  of  heaven  will  I 
make  dark  over  thee,  and  spread  darkness  over  thy  land  " 

It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  at  length  more  examples  of  this  figura- 
tive language.  Others  may  be  found ;  Isaiah  xxxiv.  4.  Jeremiah 
xv.  9.    Joel  ii.  30,  31.     iii.  15.     Amos  viii.  9. 

*1  Cor.  i.  22.  t  Johnvi.  30.  31. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.   209 

He  describes  it  under  the  figure  of  his  coming  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven  with  great  power  and  glory. 

This  is  one  of  those  passages  which  may  teach  us 
how  such  figurative  language  is  to  be  understood. 
There  was  no  visible  appearance  of  our  Saviour  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  nor  have  we  reason  to  ascribe 
the  punishment  of  the  Jews  in  any  degree  to  his  person- 
al agency.  No  such  visible  appearance  took  place  be- 
fore the  generation  then  living  had  passed  away.  Yet 
all  the  events  which  it  was  his  purpose  to  predict,  oc- 
curred during  that  period  :  After  what  has  been  quoted, 
he  says  (verse  34)  ;  "  I  tell  you  in  truth,  this  present 
generation  shall  not  pass  away  before  all  these  things  are 
accomplished."  It  is,  then,  the  power  of  God  displayed 
in  his  cause,  which  he  speaks  of  figuratively  as  his  own. 
Thus,  likewise,  we  are  to  understand  his  words  when  he 
says  in  his  last  charge  to  his  disciples  (Matth.  xxviii.  18.)  ; 
"  All  power  is  given  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ;  "  where 
he  ascribes  to  himself  personally  the  power  of  God  which 
would  be  exerted  in  the  support  of  Christianity. 

After  the  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
our  Saviour  in  the  next  chapter  (Matth.  xxv.)  repre- 
sents the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  or  Christianity,  as  estab- 
lished and  in  operation.  All  are  to  be  judged  by  its 
laws,  the  laws  of  God's  moral  government.  Some  will 
be  rewarded,  and  some  punished,  all  according  to  their 
deeds.  After  his  enforcing  this  truth  in  two  parables,  fol- 
lows that  most  solemn  and  impressive  description,  in 
which  he  represents  himself  personally  as  the  Judge  of 
men.  It  contains  a  most  important  truth  enveloped  in  a 
most  striking  figure.  It  is  a  scenical  representation, 
adapted  powerfully  to  affect  the  minds  of  his  immediate 
18* 


210        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

hearers,  and  our  own.     The  naked  truth  here  taught  is 
the  most  important,  the  most  practical,  truth  of  religion ; 
that  which  concerns  us  the  most  deeply ;  it  is,  that  our 
happiness  or  misery  is  to  be  determined  by  ourselves, 
by  the    conformity  of  our  conduct   to  the  will  of  God, 
which   Christ   has  revealed.     The   solemn    imagery  in 
which  this    truth  is  presented  is  but  an  expansion  of  the 
figure  that  our  Saviour  had  before  used  ;  "  For  the  Son 
of  Man  is  coming  with  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his 
angels  ;  and  then  he  will  render  to  every  one  accord- 
in0-  to  his  deeds."     What  was  predicted  in  these  words, 
was  to  take  place  while  some  who  heard   him  were   still 
living:  "  I  tell   you  in  truth,    there   are    some  of  those 
standing  here,  who  shall  not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  Man  coming  to  reign."    While  the  generation  then 
living  continued  on  earth,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven   was 
to  be  established,  the   Messiah  was  to  assume  his  reign, 
and  men  were  to  be  judged  by  his  laws.     It  may  be  ob- 
served that  the  figure  which  connects  his  judging  in  per- 
son with  his  assuming  his  reign,  would  be  obvious  to  an 
Oriental ;  the  ancient  custom  having  been  for  kings  to  sit 
in  person  as  judges.     Hence  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  the  verb  '  to  judge '  is  not  unfrequently  used 
as  equivalent  with  the  verb  '  to  reign  '  or  '  to  rule.' 

But  this  language  is  highly  figurative  ;  and  why,  it 
may  be  asked,  was  such  language  used  by  our  Saviour, 
language  of  which  the  purport  is  liable  to  be  misunder- 
stood ?  The  answer  is,  that,  in  the  first  place,  the  es- 
sential meaning  of  the  words,  that  meaning  which  is 
of  the  deepest  interest  to  all,  may  be  readily  under- 
stood.    It  is  clearly  tau.ht,  that  every  man  will  receive 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        211 

according  to  his  deeds ;  that  our  condition  in  the  future 
life  will  be  determined  by  our  character  in  the  present. 
To  account  for  the  imagery  in  which  this  truth  is  pre- 
sented, we  must  look  to  the  intellectual  habits  and  cul- 
ture of  those  addressed.     The  contemporaries  and  coun- 
trymen of  Christ  clothed  their  conceptions  in  language 
very  different  from  that  with  which  we  are  familiar.     To 
them,  Oriental  fashions  of  speech  were  vernacular.  They 
were  to  be  addressed  through  their  feelings  and  imagina- 
tion.    The  great  body  of  the  Jews,  unaccustomed  to 
any  exercise   of  the    understanding,    had   scarcely   the 
power  of  apprehending  a  truth  presented  to  them  as  a 
philosophical  abstraction,  in  its  naked  and  literal  form. 
An  array  of  figures  was  required  to  command  their  at- 
tention.   It  was  necessary  that  the  doctrine  taught  should 
be  incorporated,  as  it  were,  in  images  obvious  to  sight,  in 
order  to  affect  their  minds.     The  ideas  presented  were 
to  be  conveyed  in  a  manner  adapted  to  their  concep- 
tions and  associations,  to  their  capacity  of  comprehending 
and  feeling.     A  teacher,  divine  or  human,  who  should 
have  explained  the  truths  of  religion  in  the  language  of 
Locke  or  of  Butler,  would  have  found  no  hearers  on  the 
shores  of  Gennesaret  or  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 
Our  Saviour,  had  he  been  addressing  a  small  body  of 
philosophers,  would  undoubtedly  have  expressed  himself 
in  a  manner  very  different  from  that  in  which  he  spoke 
to  the  Jewish  multitudes,  or  even  to  his  own  disciples. 
I  say  in  a  very  different  manner ;  for  the  essential  truths 
of  religion  could  not  have  been  more   distinctly  made 
known  by  him. 

But  his  language,  it  may  be  said,  is  now  liable  to  be 
misunderstood  by  us.     Certainly  it  is  so,  upon  some 


212       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

points  of  minor  importance,  if  we  will  not  exercise  our 
reason  upon  the  subject ;  and  he  is  in  a  great  error  who 
supposes  that  any  rule  can  be  laid  down  for  the  study  of 
the  Scriptures,  which  shall  supersede  the  exercise  of  in- 
vestigation, thought,  and  judgment.  Except  in  treating 
of  the  exact  sciences,  the  very  nature  of  language  renders 
such  a  use  of  it  impossible,  as  will  preclude  all  liability 
to  be  misunderstood.  The  impression  which  it  makes, 
the  ideas  which  it  excites,  in  him  who  hears  or  reads  it, 
depend  upon  the  previous  state  of  his  own  mind.  In 
proportion  as  one  is  prepared  to  apprehend  a  subject,  as 
it  was  apprehended  by  him  who  spoke  or  wrote,  he  will 
be  more  likely  to  receive  the  meaning  designed.  In 
passing  from  one  age  to  another,  or  from  one  nation  to 
another,  the  significance  of  language  varies  with  the  ever- 
varying  conceptions  of  men.  Our  Saviour  often  left  his 
words  to  be  explained  by  subsequent  events,  or  to  be 
rightly  apprehended  as  the  minds  of  his  hearers  acquired 
power  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  truth.  During 
his  ministry  his  Apostles  often  misunderstood  him  ;  and  it 
was  not  till  many  years  after  his  ascension,  that  they 
comprehended  the  purport  of  the  simple  direction,  "  Go 
ye  and  make  converts  of  all  nations  "  ;  and  then  only  in 
consequence  of  a  new  miracle. 

The  language  of  Christ  respecting  his  future  coming 
and  his  judgment  of  men  was,  likewise,  I  believe,  mis- 
understood by  his  Apostles.  Interpreting  it  literally, 
they  anticipated  a  personal  and  visible  return  of  their 
Master  to  earth  at  no  distant  period,  when  he  would 
appear  as  the  Judge  of  mankind.  This  is  a  subject  neces- 
sary to  be  explained  in  connexion  with  the  views  that 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        213 

have  been  given  of  the  meaning  of  Christ,  which  would 
be  otherwise  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  a  subject  involving  considerations  of  great  im- 
portance. But  its  discussion  in  this  place  would  too 
much  interrupt  the  train  of  the  present  argument ;  and  I 
shall,  therefore,  treat  of  it  in  an  Appendix  to  this  volume. 

I  may  here  take  notice,  however,  of  the  argument 
founded  by  Trinitarians  upon  the  conceptions  of  the 
Apostles  respecting  the  judgment  of  mankind  by  Christ. 
It  has  been  contended  by  them,  that  what  the  Apostles 
expected  is  still  future  ;  that  Christ  is  hereafter  to  judge 
all  men  in  person ;  that,  in  order  to  this,  he  must  be 
acquainted  with  every  thought  and  action  of  every  indi- 
vidual ;  that  such  knowledge  supposes  omniscience  ;  that 
omniscience  is  the  attribute  of  God  alone ;  and  that  Christ, 
therefore,  is  God.  Without  examining  any  of  the  other 
steps  in  this  argument,  one  need  only  remark  upon  the 
very  limited  notion  which  it  implies  of  omniscience  on  the 
one  hand,  and  of  the  power  of  God  on  the  other.  The 
knowledge  of  all  thoughts  and  deeds  which  have  taken 
place  in  this  world  from  its  creation  would  be,  compared 
with  omniscience,  less  than  the  acquaintance  that  a 
child  may  have  with  its  nursery,  compared  with  the  ap- 
prehensions of  an  archangel.  Would  it,  then,  be  an  act 
transcending  the  power  of  God  to  communicate  that 
knowledge  ?  Could  he  not  give  to  one  man  a  perfect  ac- 
quaintance with  one  other?  And  if  this  be  possible, 
is  his  power  still  so  bounded,  that  he  could  not  give 
to  one  who  had  been  a  man,  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
thoughts  and  deeds  of  all  other  men  who  have  lived  ? 


214 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


In  urging  such  obvious  arguments  as  these,  there  is  a 
humiliating  consciousness  of  the  weakness  of  the  cause 
we  are  opposing.  One  may  feel  as  if  he  were  wasting 
reasoning  upon  a  subject  unworthy  of  it ;  as  if  his  remarks 
implied  a  want  of  common  intelligence  in  his  readers  ; 
as  if  he  were  exposed  to  the  same  ridicule,  as  he  who 
should  gravely  and  earnestly  labor  the  proof  of  an  unde- 
niable proposition.  But  the  same  is  the  case  with  all 
direct  reasoning  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  and 
one  can  reconcile  himself  to  the  discussion  of  it  only  by 
considering,  not  what  that  doctrine  is  in  itself,  but  how 
widely  and  how  long  it  has  prevailed,  how  obstinately  it 
is  still  professed,  and  the  manifold  mischiefs  which  have 
flowed  and  are  still  flowing  from  it. 


CLASS    VI. 

Passages  misinterpreted  through  inattention  to  the  pe- 
culiar characteristics  of  the  modes  of  expression  in 
the  New  Testament. 

Corresponding  to  what  has  been  already  said,  the 
modes  of  expression  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
are  often  different  from  those,  which  we  should  use  at  the 
present  day  to  express  the  same  essential  meaning.  All 
our  habits  of  life,  all  the  habits  of  our  minds,  our  con- 
ceptions, our  modes  of  apprehension,  our  associations  of 
thought,  are  more  or  less  unlike  those  of  their  writers,  or 
of  the  individuals  for  whom  the  books  were  primarily 
intended.  Our  imaginations  are  familiar  with  different 
objects ;  our  feelings  are  excited  by  other  causes ;  our 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    215 

minds  are  occupied  by  other  subjects.  While  the  essen- 
tial truths  of  religion,  as  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
have  remained  unchanged  and  unchangeable,  the  sphere 
of  human  knowledge  has  widened,  and  philosophy  has 
made  great  advances.  A  gradual  change  has  been  taking 
place  in  the  character  of  men's  ideas  ;  they  are  combined 
in  different  aggregates,  they  are  embodied  in  other  forms 
of  language,  they  are  better  defined,  they  stand  in  dif- 
ferent relations  to  each  other.  Let  any  one  recollect 
and  bring  together  what  he  may  know  of  the  half-civil- 
ized inhabitants  of  Galilee,  of  the  bigoted  Jews  of  Jeru- 
salem, or  of  the  Christian  converts  from  heathenism  at 
Corinth  or  Ephesus ;  and  he  will  perceive  that  they 
were  men,  who,  in  their  wTays  of  thinking  and  feeling,  in 
their  opinions  and  prejudices,  in  their  degree  of  informa- 
tion, in  their  power  of  comprehending  truth,  in  the  influ- 
ences to  which  they  had  been  subject,  and  in  the  circum- 
stances in  which  they  were  placed,  were  very  unlike  an 
intelligent  reader  of  the  New  Testament  at  the  present 
day.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  partook  of  the 
character  of  their  age  and  nation.  Their  circumstances, 
likewise,  were  in  the  highest  degree  peculiar,  and  pro- 
duced corresponding  feelings,  which  we  cannot  fully  ap- 
prehend without  an  effort  of  thought  and  imagination. 
They  were  Jews,  accustomed  to  strong  Oriental  modes  of 
speech,  and  to  figurative  language  of  a  kind  not  familiar 
to  us,  and  the  force  of  which,  therefore,  we  are  liable  to 
misapprehend.  All  these  circumstances  contributed  to 
produce  a  style  of  expression  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the  standard  of  our  own. 
We  may  satisfy  ourselves  that  we  have  ascertained  the 
true  meaning  of  a  writer,  even  when  his  language  varies 


216        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

much  from  that,  which  the  habits  of  our  time  might  lead 
us  to  adopt  in  conveying  the  same  ideas. 

Of  passages  that  bear  the  stamp  of  what,  in  a  wide 
sense  of  the  term,  one  may  call  the  Oriental  style  of  the 
New  Testament,  we  have  already  had  many  examples 
under  the  preceding  heads,  particularly  under  the  last. 
I  now  propose  to  explain  a  few  passages  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians ;  two  epistles  written 
probably  at  the  same  time,  having  a  striking  likeness, 
and  serving  to  illustrate  each  other.     That  which  goes 
under  the  name  of  the   Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was 
probably  a  circular  epistle  sent  to  different  churches  in 
Asia  Minor.     They  were  written  from  Rome  late  in  the 
life  of  the  Apostle,  just  about  the  termination  of  his  first 
imprisonment  in  that  city.      They   were  addressed  to 
Christians,  who  were  principally  converts  from  heathen- 
ism.    One  main  object  of  the  Apostle  was  to  impress 
them  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  blessings  they  had  received 
solely  through  the  favor  of  God,  of  the  value  of  their 
religion,  and  of  the  relations  in  which  its  teacher  stood  to 
God  and  to  his  followers ;  and  thus  to  prevent  them  from 
confounding  it  with  any  human  doctrine,  and  modifying 
it,  or  adding  to  it,  from  heathen  philosophy  or  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Jews.     He  was  earnest  to  make  them  feel 
how  intimately  they  were  connected  with  Christ,  and  to 
direct  their  thoughts  to  him  as,  under  God,  the  only 
source  of  their  knowledge,  blessings,  and  hopes. 

There  was  danger  that  after  the  first  excitement  pro- 
duced by  the  promulgation  of  Christianity  had  passed 
away,  it  would  be  regarded  by  many  Gentile  converts 
only  as  a  new  speculation  upon  topics  which  had  long 
engaged  the  attention  of  their  philosophers,  a  system  of 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         217 

opinions,  having  its  origin  in  a  nation  whom  they  regard- 
ed as  barbarous  (in  the  ancient  sense  of  the  word),  which 
they  might  adopt  in  part  only,  reject,  or  modify,  like 
other  speculations,  in  their  view  similar.  It  was  with  a 
feeling  of  this  danger,  that  St.  Paul  told  the  Corinthians 
that  he  was  sent  "  to  preach,  not  with  wisdom  of  words, 
lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  become  of  no  account"  ;* 
and  that  he  was  "  determined  to  know  nothing  among 
them,  but  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified. "f  In  the 
two  Epistles  we  are  considering,  he  teaches  those  address- 
ed, that  it  was  through  Christ  alone,  that  they  who  were 
formerly  Gentiles  had  attained  to  a  knowledge  of  God, 
and  of  the  truths  and  hopes  of  religion.  To  raise  and 
strengthen  their  sense  of  the  value  of  Christianity,  he 
describes  its  blessings,  especially  in  reference  to  them- 
selves who  had  been  Gentiles,  in  the  strongest  terms ; 
and,  to  fix  their  attention  on  Christ  as  their  great  and  sole 
master,  he  uses  language  equally  strong  in  speaking  of 
his  relation  to  God,  of  the  importance  and  dignity  of  his 
office,  and  of  the  dependence  of  all  his  followers  upon 
him. 

To  the  Colossians,  he  says  (i.  9  —  20.)  ; 

"  So  then,  we  also,  since  we  first  heard  of  your  faith, 
cease  not  to  pray  for  you  and  to  ask,  that  ye  may  be 
made  perfect  in  the  knowledge  of  God's  will,  having  all 
spiritual  wisdom  and  understanding ;  that  ye  may  walk 
worthily  of  the  Lord  to  all  acceptance,  being  fruitful 
in  every  good  work,  and  increasing  in  the  knowledge 
of  God  ;  being  endued  with  all  strength  through  his  glo- 
rious power,  so  as  to  bear  all  things  patiently  and  joyfully ; 
giving  thanks  to  the  Father,  who  has  qualified  us  to  share 

*  1  Cor.  i.  17.  t  1  Cor.  ii.  2. 

19 


218   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  lot  of  the  holy  who  are  in  the  light,  rescuing  us  from 
the  empire  of  darkness,  and  transferring  us  into  the  king- 
dom of  his  beloved  Son  ;  by  whom  we  are  delivered,  our 
sins  being  remitted  ;  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,  the  first-born  of  the  whole  creation ;  for  by  him  all 
has  been  created,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly,  the  seen 
and  the  unseen,  whether  thrones,  or  principalities,  or 
governments,  or  powers,  all  has  been  created  through 
him  and  for  him,  and  he  is  over  all,  and  all  exists  by  him. 
And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  community  of  the 
holy,*  he  being  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the 
dead,  that  he  might  have  preeminence  in  all  things.  For 
with  him  it  pleased  God  that  whatever  is  perfect  should 
be  united,  and  through  him  to  reconcile  all  to  himself, — 
making  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  —  all  whether 
in  heaven  or  on  earth  through  him." 

In  this  passage  there  are  some  expressions  that  require 
explanation.  God,  says  St.  Paul,  "  has  transferred  us 
from  the  empire  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  his  be- 
loved Son."  To  this  metaphor  much  of  the  following 
language  corresponds.  It  was  this  kingdom  which  had 
been  newly  created,  that  is,  had  been  newly  formed ; 
for  it  is  thus  that  the  word  rendered  created  is  to  be 
understood.  We  find  it,  and  its  correlatives,  repeatedly 
used  in  a  similar  sense  by  St.  Paul,  namely,  to  denote 
the  moral  renovation  of  men  by  Christianity.  Thus  he 
says  : 

"  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature.  The 
old  things  have  passed  away,  behold  all  things  have  be- 
come new."     2  Cor.  v.  17. 

*  Or  '  the  church  ' :  I  use  the  term  given  aboye  as  more  compre- 
hensive and  expressive. 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    219 

"  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  is  circumcision  any  thing, 
nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature."     Gal.  vi.  15. 

"  For  we  are  God's  workmanship,  created  through 
Christ  Jesus  for  good  works."     Ephes.  ii.  10. 

"  Put  on  the  new  man,  who  is  created  in  the  likeness 
of  God  with  the  righteousness  and  holiness  of  the  true 
faith."     Ephes.  iv.  24. 

The  language  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  in 
which  Christ  is  said  to  have  created  all  things,  is  to  be  ex- 
plained in  a  corresponding  manner.  He  created  all  things 
in  the  new  dispensation,  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  It 
has  been  understood  as  declaring,  that  the  natural  crea- 
tion was  the  work  of  Christ.  But  it  is  obvious  at  first 
sight,  that  the  words  used  are  not  such  as  properly  de- 
signate the  objects  of  the  natural  world;  and  not  such, 
therefore,  as  we  should  expect  to  be  employed,  if  these 
were  intended.  In  speaking  of  the  natural  creation,  the 
same  Apostle  refers  it  to  God  in  different  terms,  —  to 
"  the  living  God  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the 
sea,  and  all  things  that  are  in  them."  * 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  Apostle  when  he  speaks  of 
Christ  as  creating  things  heavenly,  and  unseen,  thrones, 
principalities,  governments,  and  powers  ?  I  answer,  that 
Christ  is  here  spoken  of  by  him  as  the  founder  and  mon- 
arch of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven ;  and  that  this  kingdom 
is  conceived  of,  not  as  confined  to  earth,  but  as  extend- 
ing to  the  blessed  in  heaven,  to  those  who  have  entered, 
or  may  enter,  on  their  reward.  Christ  being  represented 
under  the  figure  of  a  king,  and  his  followers  being 
those  who  constituted  the  subjects  of  his  kingdom,  their 
highest  honors   and  rewards  are  spoken  of,   in  figurative 

*  Acts  xiv.  15. 


220        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

language,  as  thrones,  principalities,  governments,  and 
powers.  He  himself  said  to  his  Apostles  ;  "  In  the  re- 
generation," that  is,  '  in  the  new  creation,'  for  the  terms 
are  equivalent,  —  "  In  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  shall  sit  on 
twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  * 
"  To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left,  "  —  to  hold  the 
highest  places  in  my  kingdom ;  to  attain  the  highest 
rewards  conferred  on  my  followers,  — "  is  not  mine  to 
give;  except  to  those  for  whom  it  is  prepared  by 
my  Father."!  But  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  including 
the  seen  as  well  as  the  unseen,  the  earthly  as  well  as 
the  heavenly,  the  terms  in  question  are  to  be  under- 
stood, not  merely  as  referring  to  the  rewards  of  the 
blessed  in  heaven,  but  as  denoting  likewise  the  highest 
offices  and  dignities  of  this  kingdom  on  earth  ;  the  offices 
of  those  who  were  ministers  of  Christ,  its  king,  —  his 
apostles  and  teachers.  The  purpose  of  St.  Paul  is  to 
declare,  that  Christ  is  the  former  and  master  of  the  whole 
church  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  of  the  whole  community 
of  the  holy  ;  that  he  is  the  author  of  all  their  blessings ; 
that  all  authority  among  them  is  from  him  ;  that  all  are 
ruled  by  his  laws ;  that  the  whole  kingdom  on  earth  and 
in  heaven  exists  through  him,  and,  figuratively  speaking, 
"for  him,"  as  its  monarch. 

The  same  leading  ideas  are  somewhat  differently  ex- 
pressed in  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  (i.  15  —  23.)  : 

"  And  therefore  I,  hearing  of  your  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  of  your  love  toward  all  the  holy,  do  not  cease 
to  give    thanks  for  you,  praying,   that  the  God  of  our 

*  JViatth.  xix.  28.  t  Matth.  xx.  23. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        221 

Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  may  give  you 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  divine  illumination,  that  you 
may  become  acquainted  with  him,  the  eyes  of  your 
minds  being  enlightened,  that  you  may  know  what  is  the 
hope  to  which  he  has  summoned  you,  and  how  rich  is 
that  glorious  inheritance  which  he  has  given  you  among 
the  holy,  and  how  exceedingly  great  is  his  power  exerted 
for  us  believers,  corresponding  to  the  operation  of  his 
might  displayed  in  raising  Christ  from  the  dead ;  whom 
he  hath  seated  at  his  own  right  hand  in  heaven,  over  all 
rule,  and  authority,  and  power,  and  dominion,  and  every 
title  of  honor  in  this  age  or  in  that  to  come  ;  putting  all 
things  under  his  feet,  and  appointing  him  supreme  head 
of  the  community  of  the  holy,  which  is  his  body,  the 
perfectness  of  him  who  is  made  completely  perfect  in  all 
things." 

In  the  passage  first  quoted  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  there  is  a  clause  (verse  19.)  which  I  have 
rendered ;  "  For  with  him  it  pleased  God,  that  whatever 
is  perfect  should  be  united."  The  rendering  of  the  Com- 
mon Version  is  ;  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father,  that  in  him 
should  all  fulness  dwell."  The  word  here  translated 
'  fulness,'  nh'tQbi^u,  means  '  perfectness,'  '  perfection,' 
'completion,'  'fulness,' or  '  that  which  perfects,'  'com- 
pletes,' 'fills.'  In  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  it  is  used  by  St.  Paul  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner ;  and  from  the  want  of  a  corresponding  term  which 
will  readily  suggest  his  meaning,  there  is  in  some  in- 
stances a  difficulty  in  expressing  it  in  English.  The 
rendering  of  the  passages  where  it  occurs  must  be  varied 
according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
19* 


222        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  leading  idea,  I  conceive,  which  St.  Paul  intended 
to  express  by  this  word  in  these  two  epistles  is  the  Per- 
fectness  of  Christianity,  whether  considered  as  a  perfect 
display  of  the  character  of  God,  as  a  perfect  system  of 
religious  truth,  or  as  making  its  disciples  perfect,  in  the 
Scriptural  sense  of  that  word.  All  perfection,  in  his  view, 
was  combined  in  it ;  and  his  meaning  in  the  clause  just 
referred  to  is,  that  it  pleased  the  Father  that  this  whole 
Perfectness,  with  all  those  who  were  the  subjects  of  it, 
{nav  TO  TthjQWfia)  should  abide  with  Christ.  To  him,  as 
their  sole  master  and  teacher,  his  followers  were  to  look. 
Nothing,  to  complete  his  religion,  was  to  be  drawn  from  any 
other  source.  Whatever  was  perfect  was  in  him,  that  is, 
in  his  religion  ;  to  him  every  '  perfect '  man  was  united. 

Thus  he  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (hi. 
14—19.); 

"  For  this,  I  bend  my  knees  to  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  name  is  borne  by  every 
family  [of  Christ's  disciples]  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  that, 
from  his  glorious  abundance,  he  may  grant  you  to  be 
powerfully  strengthened,  through  his  spirit,  within;  that 
Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through  faith  ;  that 
ye  may  have  your  root  and  foundation  in  love  ;  and 
thus  that  ye  may  be  able  to  comprehend,  with  all  the 
holy,  the  breadth  and  the  length,  the  depth  and  the 
height,  of  his  goodness,  *  and  to  know  that  Christian 

*  I  insert  the  words  '  of  his  goodness  '  to  make  what  1  conceive  the 
meaning  of  the  Apostle  clear  in  a  translation.  The  reference  of  the 
preceding  terms  descriptive  of  magnitude,  is,  I  suppose,  to<rav  t\ovtov 
tm;  Vo^ri$  avrov,  verbally,  '  the  richness  of  his  glory,'  which  I  have  ren- 
dered, '•  his  glorious  abundance."  These  words  and  others  equiva- 
lent, as  o  vrXovros  Tfjs  ^aoiroi  avrov,  — o  tXoutos  rod  Xgi?<rov,  occur  often 
in  these  epistles  as  descriptive  of  the  goodness  of  God  to  the  Gen- 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    223 

love  *  which  is  better  than  knowledge  ;  so  that  your 
perfection  may  correspond  to  the  whole  perfect  dispen- 
sation of  God,"  verbally,  that  "  you  may  be  perfected 
to  the  whole  perfection  of  God,"  that  is,  the  whole 
perfection  which  has  God  for  its  author. 

In  another  passage  in  the  same  Epistle  (iv.  11  —  13.) 
he  says,  that  God  (to  whom,  and  not  to  Christ,  the  pre- 
ceding verses  relate,) 

"  gave  to  some  to  be  apostles,  to  some  to  be  public 
teachers,  to  some  to  be  evangelists,  to  some  to  be  pastors 
and  private  teachers,  that  they  might  perfect  the  holy, 
execute  the  work  of  the  ministry,  form  the  body  of 
Christ,  till  we  all  attain  the  same  faith,  and  the  same 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  becoming  full-grown  men, 
reaching  the  full  stature  of  Christian  perfection." 

The  words  of  the  last  clause,  verbally  rendered,  would 
be  "  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  Perfectness  [that 
is,  of  the  perfect  dispensation]  of  Christ." 

In  a  passage  already  quoted  (Ephesians  i.  23.)  the 
community  of  the  holy  is  called  "the  body  of  Christ, 
the  perfectness  of  him  who  is  made  completely  perfect 
in  all  tilings."  The  word  nti^muu,  jierfectncss,  is  not 
here  used  in  the  extent  of  its  signification  as  I  have  ex- 
plained it.  It  is  limited  to  the  subjects  of  the  perfect 
dispensation  of  Christ.  As  it  stands,  it  has  a  double 
reference  ;  one  figurative  to  the  idea  of  the  perfectness, 
produced  by  uniting  a  body  to  its  head,  the  church  being 


tiles.     With  the  passage  in  the  text  may  be  compared  Romans  xi.  33. 

TX1  £ce.6os  tXovtou  xat    <ro<pioc;  xce)  yvutreco;  0£av  ! 

*  T>?v  u.ya.TYiv  toZ  Xohttov,  '■  that  love  which  Christ  has  taught  and 
requires,'  of  which  the  apostle  so  often  speaks  in  these  epistles,  that 
love  which,  he  elsewhere  teaches,  is  better  than  knowledge. 


224        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  body  and  Christ  the  head  ;  the  other  literal,  the 
church  being  called  the  perfectness  of  Christ,  partly  be- 
cause its  members  are  considered  as  perfect,  and  partly 
because  its  formation  was  the  perfecting  of  the  great  de- 
sign of  him,  who,  as  a  minister  of  God  and  teacher  of 
-        * 

the  truth,  was  "  made  completely  perfect  in  all  things.' 
We  will  now  turn  to  Colossians  ii.  1  — 10. 
"  For  I  wish  you  to  know  what  earnest  care  I  have  for 
you,  and  for  those  of  Laodicea,  and  for  all  who  have  not 
known  me  in  person ;  that  being  knit  together  in  love, 
their  minds  may  be  excited  to  attain  to  all  the  riches  of 
a  complete  understanding,  to  a  full  acquaintance  with  the 
new  doctrine  of  God,  in  which  are  stored  all  the  trea- 
sures of  wisdom  and  knowledge.     What  I  would  is  this, 
that  no  one  may  impose  upon  you  by  specious  discourses. 
For  I,  though  I  am  absent  in  body,  am  present  with  you 
in  spirit,  rejoicing  at  the  sight  of  your  well-ordered  state, 
and  the  firmness  of  your  faith  in  Christ.     As,  therefore, 
ye  have  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  continue  to 
walk   in  his  way,  rooted  in  him,  built  upon  him,  and 
established  in  the  faith  as  it  has  been  taught  you,  abound- 
ing in  thanksgiving.     Beware  lest  any  man  make  a  prey 
of  you  by  a  vain  and  deceitful  philosophy,  conformed  to 
the  doctrines  of  men,  the  principles  of  the  world,  and 
not  to  Christ ;  for  with  him  abides,  as  his  body,  all  that  is 
divinely  perfect ;  and  ye  are  made  perfect  through  him, 
who  is  the  head  of  all  rule  and  authority." 

By  the  words  rendered  "  all  that  is  divinely  perfect," 
I  understand  the  whole  divine,  perfect  dispensation,  with 
all  who  had  become  the  subjects  of  it.  *     In  the  light  in 

*  In  the  original  words,  ro  rrXngapa,  rm  S-iornroe,  the  genitive  may 
denote  the  relation  of  an  attribute  to  its  subject,  so  that  the  words 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    225 

which  the  passage  has  been  placed,  it  will  be  perceiv- 
ed that  the  leading  ideas,  and  the  language  in  which 
they  are  expressed,  are  both  essentially  the  same  with 
what  we  find  in  other  passages  of  these  two  Epistles, 
which  we  have  before  noticed.  These  thoughts  dwelt 
upon  the  mind  of  the  Apostle  while  writing,  and  he 
reiterates  them  with  a  slight  change  of  form.  They 
consist  in  exhortations  to  unwavering  faith,  to  entire  de- 
ference to  the  instructions  of  Christ  alone,  End  to  constant 
progress  in  Christian  knowledge  and  love  ;  exhortations 
founded  upon  the  perfectness  of  the  religion  taught  by 
Christ,  upon  his  divine  authority,  and  upon  the  most  in- 
timate connexion  subsisting  between  him  and  all  his  true 
followers,  he  being  the  head,  as  it  were,  and  they  the 
body,  all  their  blessings  and  all  their  knowledge,  all  that 
was  perfect  in  them,  baing  derived  from  him. 

There  are  two  other  passages  which,  perhaps,  it  may 
be  worth  wThile  to  notice  under  the  present  head.  In  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  John's  Gospel  (verse  40.)  the  Evan- 
gelist applies  to  the  Jews  of  his  time,  words  derived  from 
Isaiah  (vi.  10.),  which  he  thus  gives:  "  He  has  blinded 
their  eyes  and  made  their  minds  callous,  that  they  may 
not  see  with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with  their  minds, 
and  be  converted  and  I  should  heal  them."  "  These 
words,"  he  continues,  "  said  Isaiah,  when  he  saw  his 
glory,  and  spoke  concerning  him."  The  primary  refer- 
ence of  the  passage  was  to  the  indirect  effects  to  be  pro- 
duced by  the  preaching  of  the  Prophet  himself  upon  the 


may  be  equivalent  to  ro  3t7ov  •rkfyupet;  or  the  relation  of  a  cause  to 
its  effect,  so  that  they  may  mean  '  the  perfection  which  has  divinity 
for  its  author.'     The  ultimate  meaning  is  in  both  cases  the  same. 


226    EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Jews  of  his  time.  But  the  Evangelist  regarded  it  as 
having  a  secondary  reference  to  Christ ;  and  supposed 
Isaiah  when  uttering  those  words  to  have  seen,  that  is,  to 
have  foreseen,  his  glory  ;  the  verb  to  see  having  here  the 
same  force  as  when  used  concerning  Abraham  ;  "  Abra- 
ham saw  my  day  and  rejoiced." 

But  the  words  found  in  Isaiah  are  represented  by  the 
Prophet  as  having  been  addressed  to  himself  by  Jehovah, 
when  he  beheld  a  vision  of  him  in  the  temple  ;  and  the 
Trinitarian  contends,  that  the  glory  seen  by  Isaiah,  to 
which  St.  John  refers,  was  tins  glory  of  Jehovah,  and 
consequently  that  Jehovah  and  Christ  are  the  same. 
Unquestionably  this  interpretation  might  be  admitted,  if 
it  involved  no  absurdity  and  no  contradiction  to  what  is 
elsewhere  said  by  the  Evangelist.  But  if  it  do,  it  is 
equally  unquestionable  that  it  cannot  be  admitted. 

An  argument  has  been  founded  by  Trinitarians  upon 
the  exclamation  of  the  Apostle  Thomas  when  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  his  Master's  resurrection  :  "And  Thomas 
said  to  Jesus,  My  Master  !  and  my  God  !  "  Both  titles, 
I  believe,  were  applied  by  him  to  Jesus.  But  the  name 
c  God  '  was  employed  by  him,  not  as  the  proper  name  of 
the  Deity,  but  as  an  appellative,  according  to  a  common 
use  of  it  in  his  day  ;  or  perhaps  in  a  figurative  sense,  as 
it  sometimes  occurs  in  modern  writers,  of  which  the  pas- 
sages before  quoted  from  Young  afford  examples.  *  I 
have  already  had  occasion  to  remark  upon  the  different 
significancy  of  the  term  (  God'  in  ancient  and  in  modern 
times,  a  difference  important  to  be  well  understood  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  ancient  authors.     The 

*  See  p.  108, 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        227 

name  '  God '  is  an  appellative  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
and  it  is  a  characteristic  and  peculiar  distinction  of  the 
winters  of  the  New  Testament,  when  compared  with 
those  who  preceded  and  followed  them,  that  they  used 
this  name  as  it  is  used  by  enlightened  Christians  at  the 
present  day. 

But  the  argument  deserves  notice  as  illustrating  the 
very  loose  reasoning  which  has  been  resorted  to  in  bring- 
ing passages  from  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  in 
support  of  false  doctrines.  Supposing  that  Thomas  had 
believed,  and  asserted,  that  his  Master  was  God  himself; 
in  what  way  should  this  affect  our  faith  ?  We  should 
still  know  the  fact  on  which  his  belief  was  founded,  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  of  his  Master,  and  could  draw 
our  own  inferences  from  it,  and  judge  whether  his  were 
well  founded.  Considering  into  how  great  an  error  he 
had  fallen  in  his  previous  obstinate  incredulity,  there 
would  be  little  reason  for  relying  upon  his  opinion  as 
infallible  in  the  case  supposed.  I  make  these  remarks, 
not  from  any  doubt  about  the  meaning  of  his  words,  but, 
as  I  have  said,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  one  ex- 
ample of  that  incomplete  and  unsatisfactory  mode  of 
reasoning,  which  appears  in  the  use  of  many  quotations 
from  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 


CLASS    VII. 


The  passages  to  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  attend 
are  of  a  character  to  excite  an  interest  in  ascertaining 
their  true  meaning  without  reference  to  the  general  sub- 
ject of  this  volume.    Their  explanation  rests  on  facts  and 


228        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

principles  important  to  be  known  and  attended  to  in  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament.  But  there  are  others 
brought  forward  by  Trinitarians  of  which  the  same  can- 
not be  said,  and  which  require  only  a  very  brief  and 
general  notice. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  that  whenever  a  Trinitarian 
meaning  is  given  to  any  passage,  it  is  given  in  violation 
of  a  fundamental  rule  of  interpretation.  But  there  are 
passages  adduced,  in  the  senses  assigned  to  which,  not 
merely  this  rule  is  violated,  but  the  most  obvious  and 
indisputable  characteristics  of  language  are  disregarded, 
and  the  reasoning  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that 
they  do  not  exist.  Thus,  for  example,  it  is  said  in  Isaiah 
(xliii.  11.)  according  to  the  Common  Version;  "I,  even 
I,  am  the  Lord,  and  beside  me  there  is  no  saviour."  But 
Christ,  it  is  argued,  is  our  saviour;  and  as  it  is  proved 
by  this  passage  that  there  can  be  no  saviour  but  God,  it 
follows  that  Christ  is  God.  The  reasoning  proceeds 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  same  word  is  always  used 
in  the  same  sense,  with  the  same  reference,  and  in  the 
whole  extent  of  its  signification  ;  and  the  monstrous  con- 
clusions that  would  result  from  applying  this  argument  to 
other  individuals  beside  Christ,  to  whom  the  name  '  sav- 
iour '  is  or  may  be  given,  are  put  out  of  sight. 

On  misinterpretations,  such  as  this,  it  would  be  useless 
to  dwell.  No  information  can  be  given,  no  thoughts  can 
be  suggested,  which  are  not  obvious  to  every  reader  who 
will  exercise  his  own  understanding ;  and  to  him  who 
will  not,  all  assistance  must  be  in  vain. 

Thus  then  with  one  exception,  which  we  will  imme- 
diately consider,  we  have  taken  a  general  view  of  the 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        2*29 

manner  in  which  the  passages  adduced  by  Trinitarians 
are  to  be  explained. 


CLASS    VIII. 

The  Introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel. 

We  will  now  attend  to  a  passage  that  has  been  mis- 
understood through  ignorance  or  disregard  of  the  opinions 
and  modes  of  conception,  which  the  writer,  St.  John, 
had  in  mind.  This  is  the  introduction,  or  proem,  as  it 
has  been  called,  of  his  Gospel. 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos 
was  with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God." 

There  is  no  word  in  English  answering  to  the  Greek 
word  Logos,  as  here  used.  It  was  employed  to  denote 
a  mode  of  conception  concerning  the  Deity,  familiar  at 
the  time  when  St.  John  wrote,  and  intimately  blended 
with  the  philosophy  of  his  age,  but  long  since  obsolete, 
and  so  foreign  from  our  habits  of  thinking,  that  it  is  not 
easy  for  us  to  conform  our  minds  to  its  apprehension. 
The  Greek  word  Logos,  in  one  of  its  primary  senses, 
answered  nearly  to  our  word  Reason.  It  denoted  that 
faculty  by  which  the  mind  disposes  its  ideas  in  their 
proper  relations  to  each  other ;  the  Disposing  Power, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  of  the  mind.  In  reference  to  this 
primary  sense,  it  was  applied  to  the  Deity,  but  in  a 
wider  significance.  The  Logos  of  God  was  regarded, 
not  in  its  strictest  sense,  as  merely  the  Reason  of  God  ; 
but  under  certain  aspects,  as  the  Wisdom,  the  Mind,  the 
Intellect  of  God.  To  this  the  creation  of  all  things  was 
20 


230   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

especially  ascribed.  The  conception  may  seem  obvious 
in  itself;  but  the  cause  why  the  creation  was  primarily 
referred  to  the  Logos  or  Intellect  of  God,  rather  than  to 
his  goodness  or  omnipotence,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Pla- 
tonic philosophy,  as  it  existed  about  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  particularly  as  taugjht  by  the  eminent  Jewish  philoso- 
pher, Philo  of  Alexandria. 

According  to  this  philosophy,  there  existed  an  arche- 
typal world  of  Ideas,  formed  by  God,  the  perfect  model 
of  the  sensible  universe ;  corresponding,  so  far  as  what 
is  divine  may  be  compared  with  what  is  human,  to  the 
plan  of  a  building  or  city,  which  an  architect  forms  in 
his  own  mind  before  commencing  its  erection.  The 
faculty  by  which  God  disposed  and  arranged  the  world 
of  Ideas  was  his  Logos,  Reason,  or  Intellect.  This 
world,  according  to  one  representation,  was  supposed  to 
have  its  seat  in  the  Logos  or  Mind  of  God ;  according 
to  another,  it  was  identified  with  the  Logos.  The  Pla- 
tonic philosophy  further  taught,  that  the  Ideas  of  God 
were  not  merely  the  archetypes,  but,  in  scholastic  lan- 
guage, the  essential  forms  of  all  created  things.  In  this 
philosophy,  matter  in  its  primary  state,  primitive  matter, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  was  regarded  merely  as  the  substratum 
of  attributes,  being  in  itself  devoid  of  all.  Attributes, 
it  was  conceived,  were  impressed  upon  it  by  the  Ideas  of 
God,  which  Philo  often  speaks  of  under  the  figure  of 
seals.  These  Ideas,  indeed,  constituted  those  attributes, 
becoming  connected  with  primitive  matter  in  an  incom- 
prehensible manner,  and  thus  giving  form  and  being  to 
all  things  sensible.  But  the  seat  of  these  Ideas,  these 
formative  principles,  being  the  Logos  or  Intellect  of  God  ; 
or  according  to  the  other  representation  mentioned,  these 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        231 

Ideas  constituting  the  Logos,  the  Logos  was,  in  conse- 
quence, represented  as  the  great  agent  in  creation.  This 
doctrine  being  settled,  the  meaning  of  the  term  gradually 
extended  itself  by  a  natural  process,  and  came  at  last  to 
comprehend  all  the  attributes  of  God  manifested  in  the 
creation  and  government  of  the  universe.  These  attri- 
butes, abstractly  from  God  himself,  were  made  an  object 
of  thought  under  the  name  of  the  Loo-os.  The  Lo2;os 
thus  conceived  of  was  necessarily  personified  or  spoken 
of  figuratively  as  a  person.  In  our  own  language  in 
describing  its  agency,  —  agency  in  its  nature  personal  and 
to  be  ultimately  referred  to  God,  —  we  might  indeed  avoid 
attaching  a  personal  character  to  the  Logos  considered 
abstractly  from  God,  by  the  use  of  the  neuter  pronoun 
it.  Thus  we  might  say,  All  things  were  made  by  it. 
But  the  Greek  language  afforded  no  such  resource,  the 
relative  pronoun  in  concord  with  Logos,  being  necessarily 
masculine.  Thus  the  Logos  or  Intellect  of  God  came 
to  be,  figuratively  or  literally,  conceived  of  as  an  inter- 
mediate being  between  God  and  his  creatures,  the  great 
agent  in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  universe. 

Obsolete  as  this  mode  of  conception  has  now  become, 
there  is  a  foundation  for  it  in  the  nature  of  the  being  con- 
templated, and  of  the  human  mind.  The  Deity,  con- 
ceived of  as  existing  within  himself,  removed  from  all 
distinct  apprehension  of  created  intelligences,  dwelling 
alone  in  his  unapproachable  and  unimaginable  infinity  of 
perfections,  presents  a  different  object  to  the  mind  from 
the  Deity,  operating  around  us  and  within  us,  and  mani- 
festing himself,  as  it  were,  even  to  our  senses.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  these  two  conceptions  of  him 
have  been  regarded  apart,  and  more  or  less  separated 


232        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

from  each  other.  The  notion  of  the  Logos,  it  is  true,  is 
obsolete ;  but  we  find  something  analogous  to  it  in  the 
use  of  the  term  Nature  in  modern  times.  Employed  as 
this  often  is,  the  mind  seems  to  rest  in  some  indistinct 
notion  of  an  agency  inferior  to  the  Supreme,  or  an  agency, 
to  say  the  least,  which  is  not  referred  directly  to  God. 

The  conception  and  the  name  of  the  Logos  were 
familiar  at  the  time  when  St.  John  wrote.  They  occur 
in  the  Apocryphal  book  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
The  writer,  speaking  of  the  destruction  of  the  first-born 
of  the  Egyptians,  says  (xviii.  1 5.)  ; 

"  Thine  almighty  Logos  leapt  down  from  heaven,  from 
his  royal  throne,  a  fierce  warrior,  into  the  midst  of  a  land 
of  destruction." 

In  another  passage,  likewise,  in  the  prayer  ascribed 
to  Solomon,  he  is  represented  as  thus  addressing  God 
(ix.  1,  2.)  : 

"  God  of  our  fathers,  and  Lord  of  mercy, 
Who  hast  made  all  things  by  thy  Logos, 
And  fashioned  man  by  thy  Wisdom." 

The  terms,  the  Logos  of  God,  and  the  Wisdom  of 
God,  are  here  used  as  nearly  equivalent  in  signification. 
A  certain  distinction  was  sometimes  made  between  them  ; 
but  they  were  often  considered  as  the  same.  In  the 
book  just  quoted  we  find  strong  personifications  of  Wis- 
dom, #  considered  as  an  attribute  of  God,  and  described 
in  such  language  as  was  afterwards  applied  to  the  Logos. 
In  the  Proverbs  there  are  similar  personifications  of  Wis- 
dom,! which  the  Christian  Fathers  commonly  under- 
stood of  the  Logos. 

*  Ch.  vii.  viii.  x.         t  Ch.  viii.  See  also  Oh.  i.  20  seqq.  Ch.  iii.  19. 


Explanations  of  the  new  testament.      233 

The  use  of  the  word  '  Logos,'  in  the  sense  that  has 
been  assigned  to  it,  was  derived  from  the  Platonic  phi- 
losophy.    But  we  find  among  the  Jews  a  similar  mode 
of  conceiving  and  speaking  of  the   operations  of  God, 
unconnected  with  this  philosophy,  and  appearing  in  the 
use  of  a  different  term,  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Holy 
Spirit.     By  either  expression,  in  its  primary  theological 
sense,  was  intended  those  attributes  or  that  power  of  God, 
which    operated    among  men  to    produce    effects   that 
were  believed  to  be  conformable  to  his  will,  as  manifested 
in  the  laws  of  his  moral  government.     Thus  the  miracles 
of  a  teacher  from  God,  the  direct  influences  of  God  upon 
the  minds  of  men,  and  all  causes  tending  to  advance  men 
in  excellence,  moral  and  intellectual,  were  referred  to 
the  Holy  Spirit.     The  idea  of  its  invisible  operation  was 
associated  with  it.     To  express  what  has  been  said  in 
different  terms,  it  denoted  the  unseen  Power  of  God, 
acting  upon  the  minds  of  men  in  the  direct  or  indirect 
production  of  moral  goodness,  or  intellectual  ability,  in 
the  communication   of  truth,   and   in  the   conferring  of 
supernatural  powers.     The  conception   is   of  the  same 
class  with  that  of  the  Logos ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in 
some  instances  strongly  personified,  as  by  our  Saviour  in 
his  last  discourse  with  his  Apostles.     The  divine  Power 
which  was  manifested  in  Christ  might  be  ascribed  indif- 
ferently to  the  Spirit,  or  to  the  Logos,  of  God,  as  the 
reader  or    hearer  was  more  conversant  with    the   one 
term  or  the  other.     St.  John,  writing  in  Asia  Minor, 
where   many   for  whom  he  intended  his  Gospel  were 
familiar  with  the  conception  of  the  Logos,  has,  probably 
for  this  reason,  adopted  the  term  '  Logos '  in  the  proem 
of  his  Gospel,  to  express  that  manifestation  of  God  by 
20* 


234        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

Christ  which  is    elsewhere    referred    to   the    Spirit   of 
God.* 

But  to  return ;  the  conception  that  has  been  described 
having  been  formed  of  the  Logos  ;  and  the  Logos  being, 
as  I  have  said,  necessarily  personified,  or  spoken  of  figu- 
ratively as  a  person,  it  soon  followed,  as  a  natural  conse- 
quence, that  the  Logos  was  by  many  hypostatized  or 
conceived  of  as  a  proper  person,  f  When  the  corrective 
of  experience  and  actual  knowledge  cannot  be  applied, 
what  is  strongly  imagined  is  very  likely  to  be  regarded 
as  having  a  real  existence ;  and  the  philosophy  of  the 
ancients  was  composed  in  great  part  of  such  imaginations. 

*  It  may  be  observed,  that  amid  the  confusion  and  inconsistency 
of  those  conceptions  of  the  earlier  Fathers,  which  afterwards  settled 
into  the   doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  find  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
Logos  spoken  of  as  the  same  power  of  God.     Thus  Justin   Martyr, 
in  reference  to  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  says  (Apologia 
Prima,  p.  54)  ;  u  We  must  not  understand  by  the  Spirit  and  the 
power  from  God  any  thing  different  from  the  Logos,  who  is  the  First- 
born of  God."     Theophilus  of  Antioch  says  (Ad  Autolycum,  Lib.  ii. 
§  10.),  that  "  the  Logos  is  the  Spirit  of  God  and  his  Wisdom  "  ;  though 
he  elsewhere  (lb.  §  15.  et  §  18.)  makes  a  Trinity,  of  God,  his  Logos, 
and  his  Wisdom.     The  Wisdom  of  God  was  commonly  conceived  of 
as  the  Logos  of  God,  but  Irenseus,  like  Theophilus,  gives  the  former 
name  to  the   Holy  Spirit.     (See  Lib.  iv.  cap.  20.)     Tertullian  says 
(Advers.  Praxeam,  cap.  26.) ;  "  The  Spirit  of  God  [the  Spirit  spoken 
of  in  the  account  of  the  miraculous  conception]  is  the  same  as  the 
Logos.     For  as  when  John  says,  The  Logos  teas  made  flesh,  we  by 
the  Logos  understand  the  Spirit,  so  here  we  perceive  the  Logos  to  be 
intended  under  the  name  of  the  Spirit.     For  as  the  Spirit  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Logos,  so  the  Logos  is  the  operation  of  the  Spirit;  and 
the  two  are  one  thing.     What !  when  John  said  that  the  Logos  was 
made  flesh,  and  the  angel  that  the  Spirit  was  to  be  made  flesh,  did 
they  mean  any  thing  different?  " 

f  It  will  be  convenient  in  what  follows  to  use  the  terms  personify 
and  hypostatize,  with  their  correlatives,  as  distinguished  from  each 
other  according  to  the  senses  assigned  them  in  the  text. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        235 

The  Logos,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  was  that  power  by 
which  God  disposed  in  order  the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal 
world.     But  in  particular  reference  to  the  creation  of  the 
material  universe,  the  Logos  came  in  time  to  be  con- 
ceived of  by  many  as  hypostatized,  as  a  proper  person 
going  forth,  as  it  were,  from  God  in  order  to  execute  the 
plan  prepared,  to  dispose  and  arrange  all  things  conform- 
ably to  it,  and  to  give  sensible  forms  to  primitive  matter, 
by  impressing  it  with  the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world. 
In  many  cases  in  which  the  term  '  Logos '  occurs,  if  we 
understand  by  it  the  Disposing  Power  of  God  in  a  sense 
conformable  to  the  notions   explained,  we  may  have  a 
clearer  idea  of  its  meaning,  than  if  we  render  it  by  the 
term  '  Reason,'  or  '  Wisdom,'  or  any  other  which  our 
language  offers. 

In  the  writings  of  Philo,  who  was  contemporary  with 
our  Saviour,  we  find  the  Logos  clearly  and  frequently 
hypostatized.  According  to  him,  considered  as  a  person, 
the  Logos  is  a  god.  In  a  passage  which  has  been  closely 
imitated  by  Origen,  he  says  ;  "  Let  us  inquire  if  there 
are  really  two  Gods."  He  answers  ;  "  The  true  God  is 
one,  but  there  are  many  who,  in  a  less  strict  use  of 
language,  are  called  gods."  The  true  God,  he  says,  is 
denoted  by  that  name  with  the  article  ;  others  have  it 
without  the  article  ;  and  thus  his  most  venerable  Logos 
is  called  god  without  the  article.  *  "  No  one,"  he  says, 
"can  comprehend  the  nature  of  God  ;  it  is  well  if  we 
can  comprehend  his  name,  that  is,  the  Logos,  his  inter- 
preter ;  for  he  may  be  considered,  perhaps,  as  the  god 
of  us  imperfect  beings,  but  the  Most  High  as  the  God 

*  De  Somniis  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  €55.     Comp.  Origen's  Comment,  in 
Joan.  Opp.  IV.  51. 


236        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

of  the  wise  and  perfect."  *  He  represents  the  Logos  as 
the  instrument  (vgyavov)  of  God  in  the  creation  of  the 
universe ;  as  the  image  of  God,  by  whom  the  universe 
was  fashioned  ;  as  used  by  him,  like  a  helm,  in  directing 
the  course  of  all  things ;  as  he  who  himself  sits  at  the 
helm  and  orders  all  things  ;  and  as  his  first-born  son,  his 
vicegerent  in  the  government  of  the  world,  f  "  Those," 
says  Philo,  "  who  have  true  knowledge  [knowledge  of 

God]  are  rightly  called  sons  of  God Let  him, 

then,  who  is  not  yet  worthy  to  be  called  a  son  of  God, 
strive  to  fashion  himself  to  the  resemblance  of  God's 
first-born  Logos,  the  most  ancient  angel,  being  as  it  were 
an  archangel  with  many  titles."  {  A  little  after,  he  calls 
the  Logos,  "  the  eternal  image  of  God  "  ;  and  elsewhere 
applies  to  him  the  epithet,  "  eternal."  He  represents  the 
Logos  as  a  mediator  between  God  and  his  creatures. 
"  To  the  archangel,  the  most  ancient  Logos,  God  freely 
granted  the  high  distinction  of  standing  between  and 
separating  the  creation  from  its  Creator.  With  the  im- 
mortal being,  he  intercedes  for  what  is  mortal  and  perish- 
ing. He  announces  the  will  of  the  Ruler  to  his  subjects. 
Being  neither  unoriginated  like  God,  nor  originated  like 
man,  but  standing  between  the  two  extremes,  he  is  a 
hostage  to  both  ;  being  a  pledge  to  the  Creator  that  the 
whole  race  of  men  shall  never  fall  away  and  revolt,  pre- 
ferring disorder  to  order ;  and  giving  assurance  to  the 
creature  that  the  God  of  Mercy  will  never  neglect  what 
he  has  made."  <§> 

*  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  m.     Opp.  I.  128. 

t  De  Cherubim.  I.  1G2.  De  Monarchia.  Lib.  ii.  Opp.  II.  225.  De 
Migrat.  Abraham.  1.  437.  De  Cherubim.  1. 145.  De  Agricultura.  I. 
308. 

+  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  I.  427. 

§   Quis  Rerum  divinarum  Hoeres.  I.  501,  502. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        237 

Such  conceptions  are  expressed  by  Philo  concerning 
the  Logos  as  a  person.  If  his  representations  of  him, 
so  far  as  they  have  been  quoted,  are  not  perfectly  con- 
sistent, they  do  not  imply  that  he  wavered  much  in  the 
view  of  his  character;  and  these  representations  were 
received  by  the  early  Fathers  as  the  groundwork  of 
their  doctrine  concerning  the  personal  Logos.  But  upon 
further  examination,  the  opinions  of  Philo  will  appear 
more  unsettled  and  unsteady  ;  and  new  conceptions  will 
present  themselves.  To  these  we  shall  advert  hereafter. 
It  is  only  necessary  here  to  observe,  that  in  his  opinions 
relating  to  this  subject  there  was  little  fixedness  or  con- 
sistency. The  images  which  floated  before  his  mind 
changed  their  forms.  Throughout  his  writings,  he  often 
speaks  of  the  personal  agency  of  the  Deity  in  language 
as  simple  as  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  a  large 
portion  of  the  passages  in  which  he  makes  mention  of 
the  Logos,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  he  conceived  of 
it,  for  the  time,  otherwise  than  as  an  attribute  or  attri- 
butes of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  to  be  ob- 
served, that  the  influence  of  his  Platonism,  when  it  was 
ascendant  in  his  mind,  did  not  terminate  in  hypostatizing 
the  Logos  alone  among  the  powers  or  attributes  of  God. 

From  the  explanations  which  have  been  given  of  the 
conceptions  concerning  the  Logos  of  God,  it  will  appear 
that  this  term  properly  denoted  an  attribute  or  attributes 
of  God ;  and  that  upon  the  notion  of  an  attribute  or 
attributes,  the  idea  of  personality  was  superinduced. 
Let  us  now  consider  the  probable  meaning  of  the  first 
words  of  St.  John's  Gospel. 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was 
with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  Goq\" 


238       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

These  words  admit,  I  think,  only  of  two  explanations. 
Either  St.  John  used  the  word  *  Logos'  simply  to  denote 
the  conception  of  those  attributes  of  God  which  are  mani- 
fested in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  universe ; 
and  in  the  last  clause  intended  to  declare,  that  in  the 
contemplation  of  them,  no  other  being  but  God  is  to  be 
contemplated,  and  that  all  their  operations  are  to  be 
referred  directly  to  him  ;  —  or  he  meant  to  speak  of  those 
attributes  as  hypostatized,  and  to  represent  the  Logos  of 
God  as  a  proper  person  (such  as  he  is  described  by 
Philo),  the  minister  and  vicegerent  of  God,  who,  always 
acting  by  the  power,  and  conformably  to  the  will,  of  God, 
might  rhetorically  be  called  God,  according  to  the  figure, 
by  which  we  transfer  to  an  agent  the  name  of  his  principal. 

It  is  contended,  indeed,  that  his  words  admit  of  a 
different  meaning ;  that  the  Logos  is  here  spoken  of  as 
a  proper  person ;  but  that  this  person  is,  at  the  same 
time,  declared  to  be,  literally,  God.  But  if  we  so  under- 
stand St.  John,  his  words  will  express  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  "  The  Logos,"  he  says,  "was  with  God,"  which, 
if  the  Logos  be  a  person,  necessarily  implies  that  he  is  a 
different  person  from  God.  Whoever  is  with  any  being 
must  be  diverse  from  that  being  with  whom  he  is.  As 
far,  then,  as  we  may  be  assured  that  St.  John  did  not 
affirm  an  absurdity  in  terms,  so  far  we  may  be  assured, 
that  he  did  not  affirm  that  the  Logos,  being  a  person 
with  God,  was  also,  literally,  God.  Of  the  Evangelist 
we  may  here  say,  as  Tertullian  says  concerning  another 
passage  quoted  from  him  ;  Secundum  omnia  [in  suo 
evangelio]  potius  quam  ad  versus  omnia,  etiam  ad  versus 
suos  sensus  interpretandus  ;  — "  He  is  to  be  explained 
conformably  to  all,  rather  than  in  opposition  to  all  that 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW     TESTAMENT.       239 

he  has  elsewhere  written,  and  in  opposition,  too,  to  the 
sense  of  the  words  themselves."  Here,  therefore,  we 
dismiss  the  Trinitarian  exposition,  and  proceed  to  con- 
sider how  the  passage  is  to  be  understood. 

We  have  now  only  to  choose  between  the  two  explan- 
ations first  given.  St.  John  has  personified,  or  he  has 
hyjpostatized  the  Logos.  He  has  spoken  of  the  Logos 
simply  as  of  the  attributes,  or,  as  we  may  say,  the  Power 
of  God  manifested  in  his  works ;  or  he  has  adopted  the 
philosophy  of  some  of  his  contemporaries,  and  intended 
to  represent  this  Power  as  a  person. 

Whether  St.  John  did  or  did  not  adopt  this  Platonic 
conception,  is  a  question  not  important  to  be  settled  in 
order  to   determine   our   own  judgment    concerning  its 
truth.     But  that  he  did  not,  is  rendered  probable  by  his 
not  alluding  to  it  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel,  and  by  his 
never  in   any  other  place   introducing  an   intermediate 
agent  between  God   and  his  creation,  or  referring  the 
Divine  Power  manifested  in  Christ  to  any  other  being 
but  God  himself.     It  is  unlikely  that  he  would  receive 
a  doctrine  of  this  kind  which  had  not  been  taught  by  his 
Master;  and  neither  he  nor  any  other  of  the  Evangelists 
has  recorded  that  this  doctrine  was  taught  by  Christ. 
The   nature   of  the  doctrine  itself,  which    presents  the 
strange  conception  of  an  hypostatized  attribute  or  attri- 
butes, would  alone  forbid  the  supposition  of  its  having 
such  an  origin.     It  is  clearly  traced  to  a  different  source, 
to  a  philosophy,  which,  considering  St.  John's  intellectual 
habits,  and  his  manner  of  life,  was  not  likely  to  have  a 
strong  influence  over  his  mind. 

But,   setting   aside  these  considerations,  the   passage 
itself  affords,  perhaps,  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that 


240        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

the  Evangelist  did  not  intend  to  speak  of  an  hypostatized 
Logos.  "  The  Logos,"  he  says,  "  was  God,"  that  is, 
the  Supreme  Being.  If  we  conceive  of  the  Logos  as  a 
person,  the  agent  of  God,  those  words  considered  in 
themselves  admit,  as  I  have  said,  of  a  figurative  sense. 
But  they  would  express  an  assertion  which  is  made  by 
no  other  writer  who  entertained  this  conception  of  the 
Logos.  Philo,  or  the  earlier  Christian  Fathers,  would, 
equally,  have  shrunk  from  asserting  the  Logos  to  be  God, 
as  the  word  '  God '  is  used  by  us.  The  earlier  Fathers 
understood  the  term  (  god,'  as  here  used  by  St.  John,  in 
an  inferior  sense,  regarding  it  as  denoting  what  we  might 
express  in  English  by  saying,  that  the  Logos  was  a 
'divine  being.'  But  this,  unquestionably,  is  not  its  true 
sense.  St.  John,  having  just  used  the  word  Oe6$, '  God,' 
to  denote  the  Supreme  Being,  would  not  in  the  next 
clause  thus  vary  its  signification  ;  and  corresponding  like- 
wise to  what  I  have  before  observed,*  his  general  use  of 
this  term,  like  that  of  the  other  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists, was  the  same  with  our  own  use  of  the  name  '  God.' 
Assuming,  then,  that  the  word  Otog,  c  God,'  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us,  denotes  the  Deity ;  what  purpose  or  induce- 
ment could  St.  John  have  had  to  assert  in  a  figurative 
sense,  that  the  Logos  was  the  Deity,  upon  the  supposition 
that  he  believed  the  Logos  to  be  a  distinct  person,  the 
agent  of  the  Deity  ?  I  think  none  can  be  conjectured. 
Thus  far,  I  have  been  arguing  merely  against  the  sup- 
position, that  St.  John  adopted  the  Platonic  conception 
of  an  hypostatized  Logos.  But  as  to  the  further  suppo- 
sition, that  he  believed  his  master,  Jesus  Christ,  to  have 
been  not   a   man,   properly  speaking,    but  that  Logos 

*  See  page  226. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.       241 

clothed  in  flesh,  it  is  here  sufficient,  after  all  that  has  been 
said,  to  remark  its  inconsistency  with  the  whole  character 
of  his  narrative  and  those  of  the  other  Evangelists,  and 
with  every  other  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Had  St. 
John  believed  his  Master  to  be  an  incarnation  of  a  great 
being,  to  whom  the  name  Logos  might  be  applied,  supe- 
rior to  all  other  beings  except  God,  we  could,  with  our 
present  view  of  the  character  of  the  Apostle,  assign  no 
other  ground  for  this  belief,  than  an  assurance  of  the 
fact,  resting  upon  miraculous  evidence.  Had  he,  then, 
held  this  belief,  he  would  everywhere  have  spoken  of 
his  Master  conformably  to  it.  Christ  would  have  ap- 
peared throughout  his  Gospel  and  the  other  Gospels,  not 
as  a  man,  which  he  was  not,  but  as  the  incarnate  Logos, 
which  he  was.  No  reason  can  be  assigned  why  he 
should  not  have  been  usually  denominated  by  that  name, 
his  real  character  kept  constantly  in  view,  and  all  his 
words,  actions,  and  sufferings  correctly  represented  as 
those  of  the  agent  intermediate  between  God  and  his 
universe. 

Let  us  now  examine  whether  the  language  of  the 
Apostle  can  be  better  explained,  if  we  understand  him 
as  using  the  term  '  Logos  '  merely  to  denote  the  attributes 
of  God  manifested  in  his  works.  It  was  his  purpose,  in 
the  introduction  of  his  Gospel,  to  declare  that  Christianity 
had  the  same  divine  origin  as  the  universe  itself;  that  it 
was  to  be  considered  as  proceeding  from  the  same  power 
of  God.  Writing  in  Asia  Minor  for  readers,  by  many  of 
whom  the  term  '  Logos '  was  more  familiarly  used  than 
any  other,  to  express  the  attributes  of  God  viewed  in 
relation  to  his  creatures,  he  adopted  this  term  to  convey 
his  meaning,  because,  from  their  associations  with  it,  it 
21 


242        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

was  fitted  particularly  to  impress  and  affect  their  minds ; 
thus  connecting  the  great  truth  which  he  taught  with 
their  former  modes  of  thinking  and  speaking.  But  upon 
the  idea  primarily  expressed  by  this  term,  a  new  concep- 
tion, the  conception  of  the  proper  personality  of  those 
attributes,  had  been  superinduced.  This  doctrine,  then, 
the  doctrine  of  an  hypostatized  Logos,  it  appears  to  have 
been  his  purpose  to  set  aside.  He  would  guard  himself, 
I  think,  against  being  understood  to  countenance  it. 
The  Logos,  he  teaches,  was  not  the  agent  of  God,  but 
God  himself.  Using  the  term  merely  to  denote  the 
attributes  of  God  as  manifested  in  his  works,  he  teaches 
that  the  operations  of  the  Logos  are  the  operations  of 
God ;  that  all  conceived  of  under  that  name  is  to  be 
referred  immediately  to  God ;  that  in  speaking  of  the 
Logos  we  speak  of  God,  "  that  the  Logos  is  God." 

The  Platonic  conception  of  a  personal  Logos,  distinct 
from  God,  was  the  embryo  form  of  the  Christian  Trinity. 
If,  therefore,  the  view  just  given  of  the  purpose  of  St. 
John  be  correct,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  his  language 
has  been  alleged  as  a  main  support  of  that  very  doctrine, 
the  rudiments  of  which  it  was  intended  to  oppose. 

Considering  how  prevalent  was  the  conception  of  the 
Logos  as  a  distinct  being  from  God,  it  is  difficult  to  sup- 
pose that  St.  John  did  not  have  it  in  mind.  But  it  is  to 
be  observed,  that  the  preceding  explanation  of  his  words 
is  independent  of  this  supposition,  and  that  they  are  to 
be  understood  in  the  same  manner,  whether  they  are 
supposed  to  refer  to  that  conception  or  not. 

It  is,  then,  of  the  attributes  of  God  as  displayed  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  world,  that  St.  John 
speaks  under  the  name  of  <  the  Logos.'     To  this  name 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    243 

we  have  none  equivalent  in  English,  for  we  have  not  the 
conception  which  it  was  intended  to  express.  In  render- 
ing the  first  eighteen  verses  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  I  shall 
adopt  the  term  <  Power  of  God.'  It  is,  perhaps,  as 
nearly  equivalent  as  any  that  we  can  conveniently  use. 
But  in  order  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  passage, 
we  must  associate  with  this  term,  not  the  meaning  alone 
which  the  English  words  might  suggest  according  to 
their  common  use,  but  the  whole  notion  of  the  Lo°:os  as 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle. 

Adopting  this  term,  we  may  say  that  the  Power  of 
God,  personified,  is  the  subject  of  the  introductory  verses 
of  his  Gospel.  It  is  first  said  to  be  God,  and  afterwards 
declared  to  have  become  a  man.  It  is  first  regarded  in 
its  relation  to  God  in  whom  it  resides,  and  afterwards  in 
its  relation  to  Jesus  through  whom  it  was  manifested. 
ViewTed  in  the  former  relation,  what  may  be  said  of  the 
Power  of  God  is  true  of  God  ;  the  terms  become  iden- 
tical in  their  purport.  Viewed  in  the  latter  relation, 
whatever  is  true  of  the  Power  of  God  is  true  of  Christ, 
considered  as  the  minister  of  God.  His  words  were  the 
words  of  God,  his  miracles  were  performed  by  the  power 
of  God.  In  the  use  of  such  figurative  language,  the 
leading  term  seldom  preserves  throughout  the  same  de- 
terminate significance  ;  its  meaning  varies,  assuming  a  new 
aspect  according  to  the  relations  in  which  it  is  present- 
ed. Thus  an  attribute  may  be  spoken  of  as  personified, 
then  simply  as  an  attribute,  and  then,  again,  as  identified 
with  the  subject  in  which  it  resides,  or  the  agent  through 
whom  it  is  manifested.  In  regard  to  the  personification 
of  the  Logos  by  St.  John,  which  is  a  principal  source  of 
embarrassment  to  a  modern  reader,  it  was,  as  I  have  said, 


244        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

inseparable  from  the  terms  in  which  the  conception  was 
expressed,  the  actions  ascribed  to  the  Logos  being  of  a 
personal  character,  and  the  use  of  the  neuter  pronoun 
being  precluded  by  the  syntax  of  the  Greek  language. 
St.  John,  then,  says : 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Power  of  God,  and  the 
Power  of  God  was  with  God,  and  the  Power  of  God  was 
God.  He  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  nothing  was  made 
which  was  made.  In  him  was  the  source  of  blessed- 
edness  ;  *  and  the  source  of  blessedness  was  the  light  for 
man.  And  the  light  is  shining  in  darkness ;  though  the 
darkness  was  not  penetrated  by  it.  There  was  a  man 
sent  from  God  whose  name  was  John.  This  man  came 
as  a  witness,  to  bear  testimony  concerning  the  light ;  that 
all  might  believe  through  him.  He  was  not  the  light,  but 
he  came  to  bear  testimony  concerning  the  light.  The 
true  light,  f  which  shines  on  every  man,  was  coming  into 
the  world.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  by  him  the  world  was 
made,  and  the  world  acknowledged  him  not.  He  came 
to  his  peculiar  possession,  and  his  peculiar  people  receiv- 
ed him  not.    But  to  as  many  as  received  him  he  gave  a 

*  Zuh,  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  life.  It  is  here,  how- 
ever, used  in  the  sense  of  blessedness,  as  often  in  the  New  Testament. 
But  the  blessedness  spoken  of  is  that  which  is  communicat ed,  not  that 
which  is  enjoyed,  by  the  Logos.  I  do  not  perceive,  therefore,  that 
the  sense  of  the  original  can  be  expressed  more  concisely  in  English 
than  by  the  words  which  I  have  used.  This  blessedness  is  commu- 
nicated through  the  revelation  o£  religious  truth  ;  the  intellectual 
light  ;  —  not  "  of  men,"  but  "  for  men."  In  other  words,  the  revela- 
tion made  by  the  Power  of  God  through  Christ,  which  is  the  light  of 
the  moral  world,  is  the  source  of  blessedness  to  men. 

t  <  The  true  light,'  that  is  the  Power  of  God,  the  Logos  ;  so  called 
because  he  is  the  source  of  the  light,  the  revealer  of  religious  truth. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        245 

title  to  be  children  of  God,  they  being  born  not  of  any  pe- 
culiar race,*  nor  through  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  through 
the  will  of  man,  but  being  children  of  God.  And  the 
Power  of  God  became  a  man  ;  f  and  dwelt  among  us,  full 
of  kindness  and  truth  ;  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  such  as 
an  only  son  receives  from  a  father.  John  bore  testimony 
concerning  him,  and  proclaimed  ;  This  is  he  of  whom  I 
said,  He  who  came  after  me  has  gone  before  me,  for  he 
was  my  superior.  Of  his  inexhaustible  store  we  all  have 
received,  even  favor  upon  favor.  For  the  law  was  given 
by  Moses,  favor  and  truth  by  Jesus  Christ.  No  man 
hath  ever  seen  God  ;  the  only  Son,  who  is  on  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  made  him  known." 

In  a  note  on  this  passage,  I  have  explained  the  words, 
"  the  Logos  became  flesh,"  or  "  the  power  of  God  be- 
came a  man,"  as  meaning  that  '  the  power  of  God  was 
manifested  in  a  man,'  that '  it  was  exercised  through  him,' 
'  it  resided  in  him.'  To  one  familiar  with  the  uses  of 
figurative  language  the  interpretation  may  appear  obvi- 
ous.    Some  Trinitarians,  however,  may  object  to  it  as 

*  Olx.  Ig  alfiiruv,  literally,  not  of  (particular)  races,  aTpa  being  here 
used  in  the  sense  of  race,  as  in  Acts  xvii.  26,  and  by  profane  writers. 
Blood  in  English  is  used  in  a  similar  sense;  as  in  the  expression, 
'  They  were  of  the  same  blood.'  The  meaning  of  the  whole  thirteenth 
verse  is,  that  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  were  not  confined  to  any 
particular  race,  as  that  of  the  Jews  ;  and  that  none  received  them  on 
the  ground  of  natural  descent,  as  children  of  Abraham  and  the  other 
patriarchs. 

t  2ag  lyirtro,  rendered  in  the  Common  Version, '  became  flesh.' 
The  word  trag,  in  its  primitive  meaning  fcsh,  is  often  used  to  denote 
man.  When  it  is  said  that  the  Logos,  or  the  Power  of  God,  became 
a  man,  the  meaning  is  that  the  Power  of  God  was  manifested  in  and 
exercised  through  a  man.  It  is  afterward,  by  a  figurative  use  of 
language,  identified  with  Christ  in  whom  it  is  conceived  of  as  resid- 
ing. 

21* 


246   EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

forced.  I  would,  therefore,  ask  him  who  believes  that 
by  the  Logos  is  meant  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity, 
to  consider  the  exposition  which  he  himself  puts  upon 
the  words.  According  to  this,  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity,  the  Son,  who  is  himself  God,  became  a  man, 
or,  to  adopt  the  rendering  of  the  Common  Version,  was 
made  flesh.  God  became  a  man,  or  was  made  flesh. 
By  the  word  rendered  '  became,'  or  '  was  made,'  the 
Trinitarian  understands  to  be  meant,  that  he  '  was  hypo- 
statically  united  to  '  a  man,  '  was  so  united  to '  a  man, e  as 
to  constitute  with  him  but  one  person.'  It  is  a  sense  of 
the  Greek  word  iydvsro  not  to  be  found  elsewhere  ;  to 
say  nothing  of  the  meaning  of  the  whole  sentence,  if  it 
may  be  called  a  meaning,  which  results  from  giving  i/evsxo 
this  unauthorized  signification.  The  Antitrinitarian,  on 
the  other  hand,  understands  the  word  as  equivalent  to 
'  became,'  in  that  figurative  sense  in  which  we  say  that 
one  thing  is,  or  becomes,  another,  when  it  manifests  its 
properties  in  that  other  thing  so  spoken  of.  He  per- 
ceives as  little  difficulty  in  the  language,  as  in  that  with 
which  Thomson  commences  his  Hymn  on  the  Seasons. 

"These,  as  they  change,  Almighty  Father,  these 
Are  but  the  varied  God." 

As  the  Seasons  are  figuratively  called  God,  because  God 
in  them  displays  his  attributes,  so  the  Logos  is  figura- 
tively called  a  man,  because  in  Christ  were  manifested 
the  same  Divine  Power,  Wisdom,  and  Goodness  by 
which  the  universe  was  created. 

It  is  by  no  means  uncommon  to  find  in  the  same  pas- 
sage an  attribute  or  a  quality,  now  viewed  in  the  abstract 
and  personified,  and  then  presented  to  the  imagination  as 
embodied  in  an  individual  or  individuals.     Thus  Thorn- 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.        247 

son,  on  the  same  page  in  the  volume  before  me  from 
which  I  made  the  last  quotation,  says : 

"  Heaven-born  Truth 
Wore  the  red  marks  of  Superstition's  scourge." 

It  is  Truth  considered  in  the  abstract,  which  is  described 
as  heaven-born  or  revealed  from  heaven ;  it  is  those  who 
held  the  truth  who  were  scourged  by  Superstition.  Other 
similar  examples  might  be  adduced.  I  will  give  one 
expressly  conformed  in  its  general  character  to  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration,  in  which  no  person  accustomed 
to  the  use  of  figurative  language  will  suppose  that  its 
proper  limits  are  transgressed. 

Goodness  is  seated  on  the  throne  of  God,  and  directs 
his  omnipotence.  It  is  the  blessedness  of  all  holy  and 
happy  beings  to  contemplate  her,  the  Supreme  Beauty, 
and  become  more  and  more  conformed  to  her  image.  It 
is  by  her,  that  the  Universe  is  attuned,  and  filled  with 
harmony.  She  descended  from  heaven,  and  in  the  per- 
son of  Christ  displayed  her  loveliness ;  and  called  men 
to  obey  her  laws,  and  enter  her  kingdom  of  light  and  joy. 
But  she  addressed  those  whom  their  vices  and  bigotry 
had  made  blind  and  deaf.  She  was  rejected,  despised, 
hated,  persecuted,  crucified. 

It  may  appear  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  figure 
by  which  St.  John  speaks  of  the  Logos  as  becoming  a 
man,  or,  in  other  words,  of  Christ  as  being  the  Logos, 
belongs  to  a  class  in  common  use.  But  it  might  have 
been  sufficient  at  once  to  observe,  that  analogous  modes 
of  expression  are  used  even  by  Philo,  though  he  regarded 
the  Logos  as  a  proper  person.  Considering  the  Logos 
as  the  agent  of  God  in  the  creation  and  government  of 
all,  the  being  through  whom  God  is  manifested,  Philo 


248       EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

applies  that  name  to  other  beings,  the  agents  of  God's 
will.  In  this  use  of  the  term,  it  may  seem  that  the 
Logos  being  viewed  as  the  primal,  universal  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  all  particular  manifestations  are  referred  to  it 
by  Philo,  as  parts  to  a  whole ;  — or  the  one  Logos  is  sup- 
posed to  act  in  every  particular  Logos,  using  all  as  its 
ministers.  However  this  may  be,  he  familiarly  calls  the 
angels  aLogoi"  #  (in  the  plural),  and  applies  the  term 
also  to  men.  Thus  he  speaks  of  Moses  as  "  the  law- 
giving Logos,"  as  "  the  divine  Logos,"  and,  when  he 
interceded  for  the  Israelites,  as  "  the  supplicating  Logos 
of  God."  f  Aaron  is  called  "  the  sacred  Logos."  J  The 
same  title  is  given  to  Phinehas,  upon  occasion  of  his  stay- 
ing the  plague  in  the  Jewish  camp.  §  And  the  high 
priest  is  repeatedly  called  "  Logos."  Such  language 
being  common,  the  contemporaries  of  St.  John  would 
readily  understand  him,  when  he  spoke  of  the  Logos  be- 
coming a  man,  or  of  Christ  as  being  the  Logos.  When 
afterwards,  the  Christian  Fathers,  regarding  the  Logos  as 
hypostatized,  supposed  it  to  have  become  incarnate  in 
Christ,  they,  of  course,  put  a  new  sense  upon  the  words 
of  the  Apostle. 

I  may  here  take  notice  of  a  supposed  analogy,  which 
I  believe  does  not  exist,  between  the  introductory  verses 
of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  those  with  which  he  commences 
his  First  Epistle.     In  the  latter,  by  the  expression  ren- 

*  De  Posteritate  Caini.  I.  242.     De  Confusione  Linguarum.  I.  409. 
alibi  saepe. 

f  De  Migrat.  Abrahami.  I.  440,  449,  455. 

X  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  59. 

§  Quis  Rerum  divinarum  Haeres.  I.  501. 

||  De  Gigantibus.  I.  2G9.     De  Migrat.  Abrahami.  I.  452. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.         249 

dered  in  the  Common  Version,  "word  of  life  "  (AoWt«$ 
£w,]c),  he  intends,  I  think,  merely  the  Christian  doctrine, 
"  the  life-giving  doctrine  "  ;  and  has  no  reference  to  the 
philosophical  notion  of  the  Logos  of  God.  This  ex- 
pression, and  others  similar,  are  used  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament  in  the  same  sense.  *  The  commence- 
ment of  the  Epistle  may  be  thus  rendered  : 

"  What  took  place  from  the  beginning,!  what  we  have 
heard,  what  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  what  we  have 
beheld,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  concerning  the  life- 
giving  doctrine  ;  —  for  Life  has  been  revealed,  and  we 
saw  and  bear  testimony,  and  announce  to  you  that  Eternal 
Life  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  has  been  revealed 
to  us ;  —  what  we  have  seen  and  heard,  we  announce  to 
you,  so  that  you  may  share  with  us ;  and  our  lot  is  with 
the  Father  and  with  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ." 

Notwithstanding  the  coincidence  of  some  words,  used 
in  different  senses,  it  is  obvious  that  the  purpose  of  St. 
John  in  the  passage  just  quoted  was  wholly  different  from 
that  which  appears  in  the  introduction  of  his  Gospel. 
In  the  latter  he  intended  to  affirm,  that  the  Christian 
revelation  was  to  be  referred  to  the  same  Divine  Wis- 
dom, Goodness,  and  Power  by  wThich  the  world  was 
created   and   is   governed.     In   the   first    verses    of   his 

*  See  Philippians  ii.  16.  Acts  v.  20.  John  vi.  G3,  68.  Rom. 
viii.  2.  etc. 

t  That  is,  '  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  dispensation.'  The 
terms.  «*•'  k*%nst  or  ££  ag%tj{,  from  the  beginning,  commonly  occur  in 
St.  John's  writings  in  reference  to  the  beginning  of  a  period  deter- 
mined only  by  the  connexion  in  which  the  words  occur.  Thus  in 
the  second  chapter  of  this  Kpistle.  verse  7,  he  says;  "Beloved,  I 
write  you  no  new  commandment,  but  an  old  commandment,  which 
ye  have  had  from  the  beginning  [rather,  from  the  first].  See  also 
Epistle  ii.  24. ;  iii.  11.     Gospel  vi.  64. ;  xv.  27. ;  xvi.  4.  etc. 


250        EXPLANATIONS    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Epistle  he  merely  affirms,  that  what  he  had  taught  con- 
cerning this  revelation  rested  upon  his  own  personal 
knowledge,  upon  the  testimony  of  his  senses.  * 

We  will  here  conclude  our  examination  of  passages 
adduced  by  Trinitarians.  I  have  remarked  upon  those 
which  will  generally  be  considered  as  most  important, 
and  it  would  be  useless  to  proceed  further.  As  to  any 
of  which  I  have  omitted  to  take  notice,  it  will  be  easy 
to  apply  to  them  the  principles  and  facts  which  have 
been  stated  and  illustrated. 

In  treating  of  the  Proem  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  we 
have  had  occasion  partially  to  consider  the  doctrine  of 
the  Platonic  Logos,  the  germ  of  the  Christian  Trinity. 
In  the  next  section  I  shall  proceed  to  give  some  further 
account  of  it,  and  of  the  conceptions  connected  with  it ; 
my  purpose  being  to  bring  into  view  some  particulars,  not 
generally  attended  to,  concerning  the  origin,  relations, 
and  character  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  it  existed 
during  the  first  four  centuries. 

*  There  is  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (iv.  12, 13),  and 
another  in  the  Apocalypse  (xix.  13.),  in  which  the  conception  of  the 
Logos,  as  an  attribute  or  attributes  of  God,  appears  to  be  introduced, 
as  in  the  introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel.  But  it  would  not  be  to 
our  present  purpose  to  remark  upon  them  further. 


SECTION  X. 

ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

It  is  in  the  writings  of  Philo,  that  we  find  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos  first  developed ;  and  his  conceptions 
concerning  this,  as  well  as  other  subjects  connected  with 
theology,  deserve  to  be  attentively  studied. 

Philo,  it  will  be  recollected,  was  of  Alexandria,  a  con- 
temporary of  Christ,  a  Jewish  Platonist.  No  individual, 
since  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  exception,  per- 
haps, of  Augustin,  has  exercised  so  considerable  and 
lasting  influence  upon  the  opinions  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world,  as  this  learned  and  eloquent  Jew.  His  in- 
fluence operated  through  the  early  Christian  Fathers, 
particularly  those  of  Alexandria.  To  the  distinction 
which  he  has  thus  attained,  he  had  no  claim  from  the 
clearness  or  consistency  of  his  speculations,  or  any  power 
of  argument.  In  his  mind,  imagination  had  seized  upon 
the  whole  domain  of  speculative  reason.  As  an  inter- 
preter, he  melted  down  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  recast  it  in  fanciful  allegories.  In  fol- 
lowing him  in  his  expositions,  which  constitute  far  the 
greater  part  of  his  works,  the  reader  is  bewildered  by  a 
constant  succession  of  metamorphoses.  His  unsubstan- 
tial conceptions  on  other  subjects  retain  no  permanent 
form.     But  he  sometimes  pours  forth  noble  thoughts  in 


252       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS* 

a  stream  of  overflowing  eloquence.  His  morality  is,  for 
the  most  part,  correct ;  and,  considering  his  age  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  he  wrote,  wonderfully  pure 
and  elevated.  He  seems  to  have  been  deeply  penetrated 
by  sentiments  of  true  religion,  and  thus  separated,  like 
the  early  Christians,  from  the  world  around  him.  Though 
verging  toward  asceticism  in  his  morality,  and  mysticism 
in  his  religious  feelings,  he  stopped  short  of  the  extrava- 
gances of  both.  His  general  conceptions  of  the  Divinity 
are  those  of  an  enlightened  Christian  ;  and  his  imaginations 
concerning  the  powers  and  operations  of  God,  if  untena- 
ble, are  but  seldom  offensive  even  to  a  modern  reader. 
His  visionary  speculations  concerning  him  seem  to  have 
been  rebuked  by  the  severe  genius  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
and  to  float  on  the  confines,  which  separate  poetry  and 
rhetoric  from  philosophy.  For  the  most  part,  he  speaks 
of  God,  not  only  as  the  first  cause,  but  as  the  immediate 
agent  in  the  production  of  beings  and  events,  without 
superadding  any  thing  in  this  respect  to  the  representa- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament.  There  are  many  passages 
in  which  he  introduces  the  Logos,  and  other  powers  or 
attributes  of  God,  as  instrumental  agents  of  the  Deity, 
that  might  be  explained  as  the  language  of  bold  personi- 
fication, such  as  is  applied  to  Wisdom  in  the  Proverbs 
and  the  Apocrypha.  But  his  imaginations  occasionally, 
or  permanently,  passed  into  opinions  ;  and  there  are  pas- 
sages in  his  writings  which  prove  that  he  sometimes,  if 
not  always,  conceived  of  the  Logos  and  of  other  attri- 
butes of  God  as  proper  persons.  Of  those  relating  to 
the  Logos  I  have  already  given  examples. 

From  Philo,  the  Catholic  Fathers  borrowed  their  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos,  and  the  Gnostics,  I  may  add  much 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  253 

of  the  material  of  their  systems  of  JEons.  *  The  Fathers 
copied  his  conceptions,  his  distinctions,  his  language, 
and  his  illustrations.     Our  interest  is  consequently  ex- 

*  As  I  shall  in  this  section  occasionally  refer  to  the  Gnostics,  I 
will  here  give  such  a  brief  account  of  them  as  may  be  necessary  to 
illustrate  those  references.  The  term  '  Gnostics  '  is  a  general  name 
applied  to  various  sects  of  Christians  having  much  in  common,  who 
early  distinguished  themselves  from  the  great  body  of  believers. 
They  existed  principally  during  the  first  three  centuries.  Their  most 
distinctive  opinion  was  the  belief,  that  the  material  world  was  created 
by  an  imperfect  being,  far  inferior  to  God,  —  the  Demiurgus  or  Cre- 
ator ;  from  whom  also  they  supposed  the  Jewish  dispensation  to  have 
proceeded.  Christ  was  in  their  view  the  messenger  of  the  Supreme 
God  to  deliver  men  from  the  reign  of  the  Creator. 

But  those  opinions  to  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer,  con- 
cerned the  developement  of  beings  from  the  Supreme  God.  Re- 
specting this  subject,  different  sects  had  different  schemes.  Con- 
cerning all,  our  information  is  imperfect;  but  that  of  the  Valentinians, 
as  reformed  by  Ptolemy,  or  the  Ptolemaeo-Valentinian  theory,  as  it 
may  be  called,  is  the  best  known,  was  the  most  prevalent,  and  may 
serve  as  a  specimen  of  their  general  character.  According  to  this 
theory,  God  was  conceived  of  as  having  dwelt  from  eternity  with 
Silence,  or  Thought,  or  Benevolence,  (for  these  different  names  are 
used,)  who  appears  dimly  shadowed  forth  as  the  hypostatized  spouse 
of  God.  Silence  becoming  pregnant  through  his  power,  the  first  and 
greatest  emanation  from  God,  Intellect  (Nous)  was  produced,  with 
Truth  for  his  spouse,  and  from  Intellect  and  Truth  were  then  emit- 
ted Reason  (the  Logos),  with  his  spouse,  Life ;  and  Man,  with  his 
spouse,  the  Church. 

The  Gnostics  affected  the  reputation  of  superior  wisdom  and  dis- 
cernment ;  and  in  this  arrangement  of  emanations,  we  may  perceive, 
I  think,  what  they  regarded  as  a  more  full  developement  of  ideas 
which,  in  their  view,  were  ignorantly  confounded  together  by  other 
Christians.  By  these,  no  distinction  was  made  between  Intellect 
and  Reason,  the  Nous  and  the  Logos ;  the  Gnostics,  on  the  contrary, 
separated  them  from  each  other,  and  regarded  the  latter  as  compre- 
hended in,  and  emanating  from,  the  former.  We  find  something 
analogous  to  their  conception  in  Origen  (Comment,  in  Joannem. 

22 


*254  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

cited  to  learn  all  that  may  be  known  of  his  opinions  con- 
cerning this  subject.  The  inquiry  will  show  us  how 
imperfect  and  changeable  was  his  notion  of  an  hyposta- 
tized  Logos,  and  will  at  the  same  time  open  to  us  a 
prospect  of  speculations  respecting  the  Divine  Nature, 
the  most  foreign  from  our  modes  of  thinking,  but  which 
have  very  extensively  prevailed. 

In  the  last  section,  I  have  given  that  view  of  Philo's 
opinions  concerning  an  hypostatized  Logos  which  is  most 
commonly  presented.  But  there  is  much  more  to  be 
known.  We  will  first  consider  how  he  speaks  of  the 
Logos  in  relation  to  the  Wisdom  of  God. 

Opp.  IV.  20,  21,  22,  47.),  who  represents  the  Logos  of  God  as  com- 
prehended in  his  Wisdom,  and  referring  to  Proverbs  viii.  22, 
(according  to  the  Septuagint,)  The  Lord  created  me,  the  Beginning, 
understands  St.  John  as  meaning,  that  the  Logos  was  in  Wisdom, 
when  he  says,  The  Logos  teas  in  the  Beginning.  So  also,  I  conceive, 
it  was  another  refinement  of  the  Gnostics  to  separate  the  emanation 
Man  from  the  emanation  Logos.  The  Logos  was  by  Philo  regarded 
as  that  image  of  God  after  which  man  was  created,  the  archetypal 
man,  the  primal  man.  But  the  Gnostics  chose  to  separate  these  two 
characters,  and  made  a  distinct  emanation  of  the  Primal  Man. 

In  order  fully  to  explain  what  has  been  said,  it  is  necessary  to 
remark,  that  the  female  emanations  are  merely  hypostatized  attri- 
butes or  energies  of  the  male,  and  that  the  line  of  derivation  from 
the  Deity  is  thus  to  be  regarded ;  first  Intellect,  then  the  Logos,  then 
the  Primal  Man. 

After  those  which  have  been  mentioned,  follows  in  the  system  a 
series  of  emanations,  all,  I  conceive,  hypostatized  attributes  or  Ideas, 
of  which  it  is  here  unnecessary  to  give  a  farther  account.  All  these 
emanations  and  the  Deity  himself  were  denominated  JEons,  that  is, 
*  Immortals.'  They  constituted  the  Pleroma  of  the  Gnostics,  by 
which  seems  to  have  been  meant  '  the  Perfect  Manifestation  of  the 
Deity.'  The  word  was  likewise  used  to  denote  the  spiritual  world 
inhabited  by  them,  as  distinguished  from  the  material  universe. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  255 

With  the  Wisdom  of  God,  the  Logos  is  expressly- 
identified  by  Philo.  *  He  ascribes  the  same  titles,  char- 
acter, and  offices  to  both.f  "  God,"  he  says,  "separated 
Wisdom  from  his  other  powers  as  the  head  and  chief."  J 
He  speaks  of  the  universe  as  formed  by  Divine  Wisdom. § 

But  though  he  thus  identifies  the  Wisdom  with  the 
Logos  or  Reason  of  God,  yet  he  elsewhere  represents 
Wisdom  as  the  mother  of  the  Logos  ;  "  his  Father  being 
God,  the  Father  of  All,  and  his  Mother  being  Wisdom, 
through  whom  all  things  are  produced."  ||  In  another 
place,  the  figure  being  borrowed  from  a  passage  on  which 
he  is  commenting,  he  says,  that  "  to  his  Logos,  God  has 
given  his  Wisdom  for  a  country  where  he  may  dwell  as 
native  to  the  soil."  H 

He  repeatedly  represents  Wisdom  as  the  Spouse  of 
God,  and  the  Mother  of  all  things ;  in  the  same  manner 
(to  notice  his  coincidence  with  the  Gnostics)  as  in  the 
Ptolemaeo-Valentinian  theory,  Silence,  Thought,  or  Be- 
nevolence is  assigned  as  a  spouse  to  the  Divine  Being. 
"  God,"  he  says,  "  we  may  rightly  call  the  Father,  and 
Wisdom  the  Mother  of  this  universe";  and  the  language 
which  he  uses  in  reference  to  this  conception  is  as  ab- 
horrent to  our  feelings  of  propriety,  as  that  which  Ire- 

*  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  56.  Quod  Deterior  Potiori  insid. 
soleat.  I.  213,  214. 

t  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  51,  52.  comp.  De  Confusione 
Linguarum.  I.  427.  —  De  Migrat.  Abraham.  I.  442.  comp.  De  Som- 
niis.  I.  633. —  De  Congressu.  I.  536.  comp.  De  Mundi  Opificio. 
I.  5.  —  De  Profujris.  I.  553. 

X  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  u.  Opp.  I.  82. 

§  Quis  Rerum  div.  Hseres.  I.  501. 

|1  De  Profugis.  I.  562. 

IT  Ibid.  p.  557. 


256       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

naeus  ascribes  to  the  Valentinians.*  Elsewhere  he  calls 
"  the  Virtue  and  Wisdom  of  God  the  mother  of  all "  ;f 
and  in  another  place  he  describes  Wisdom  as  the  daugh- 
ter of  God,  "  always  delighting,  rejoicing,  and  exulting 
in  God  her  Father  alone,"  where,  immediately  after,  he 
identifies  her  with  the  Logos.  |  Again,  he  represents 
Wisdom,  "  the  daughter  of  God,"  as  properly  to  be 
called  both  male  and  female,  both  father  and  mother.  § 

These  varying  accounts  of  the  Wisdom  of  God  seem 
to  be,  in  great  part,  rhetorical  personifications.  But 
when  we  recollect  that  the  Wisdom  is  identified  with  the 
Logos  of  God  by  Philo,  as  by  the  Christian  Fathers,  we 
perceive  how  in  his  mind  figures  of  speech  were  mixed 
up  with  opinions,  shadows  with  what  he  thought  sub- 
stantial beings.  The  process  by  which  his  fancies  indu- 
rated into  doctrines,  was  left  too  incomplete  for  his 
scheme  to  possess  proper  consistency.  This  will  still 
further  appear  from  what  follows. 

The  hypostatized  Logos,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  is 
an  hypostatized  attribute  or  attributes  of  God.  But 
there  are  other  attributes,  or,  as  Philo  denominates  them, 
Powers  (dvwfisig)  of  God,  which  appear  hypostatized 
in  his  writings,  as  distinctly  and  permanently  as  the 
Logos.  Of  this  I  will  give  some  examples.  From 
these  it  will  appear  how  imperfectly  Philo's  theory  was 
adjusted  in  his  own  mind,  and  how  far  he  was  from  hav- 
ing settled  the  relation  of  the  other  Powers  of  God  to 
the  Logos.     His  conceptions  have  an  analogy  to  the 

*  De  Ebrietate.  I.  3G1.  (comp.  Irenseum  cont.  Haereses.  Lib.  i.  cap. 
1.)    Quod  Det.  Pot.  insid.  soleat.  I.  201,  202.     De  Cherubim.  I.  148. 
t  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  n.  Opp.  1.  75. 
I  Legg.  Allegorr.  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  56.  §  De  Profugis.  I.  553. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  257 

Valentinian  system  of  iEons,  and  his  hypostatizing  these 
other  Powers  of  God,  if  it  did  not  give  occasion  to,  at 
least  countenanced,  their  speculations. 

The  six  cities  of  refuge,  appointed  by  the  Jewish 
Law,  are,  according  to  him,  symbolical  of  Powers  of 
God,  to  whom  men  may  fly  for  refuge.  The  most  an- 
cient, the  strongest,  the  best,  the  metropolis,  from  which 
the  others  are,  as  it  were,  colonies,  is  the  Divine  Logos, 
the  Mind,  Intellect,  or  Reason  of  God.  The  other  five 
are  the  Creative,  by  which  he  made  the  universe,  which 
Moses,  according  to  Philo,  has  called  God  ;  the  Regal,  by 
which  he  governs  it,  and  which  bears  the  name  of  Lord  ; 
the  Merciful ;  the  Legislative  which  commands  and  re- 
wards ;  and  the  Legislative  which  forbids  and  punishes. 
"  Over  all  these  latter  powers  is  the  Divine  Logos,  the 
most  ancient  (or  venerable)  of  intelligible  things,  the 
nearest  to  God,  nothing  intervening  between  him  and 
that  Being  on  whom  he  rests,  Him  who  alone  truly  exists. 
He  is  the  charioteer  of  the  Powers  of  God,  to  whom 
God  gives  directions  for  the  right  guidance  of  the  uni- 
verse." * 

After  having  given  different  allegorical  explanations 
of  the  two  Cherubim  who  guarded  the  gate  of  Paradise, 
Philo  says,  "  I  have  heard  a  yet  higher  doctrine  from 
my  soul,  accustomed  to  be  divinely  inspired,  and  to  utter 
oracles  concerning  things  of  which  itself  is  ignorant. 
This  doctrine,  if  I  am  able,  I  will  give  from  memory. 
My  soul  then  said  to  me,  that  with  the  one  God  who 
possesses  true  being,  there  are  two  highest  and  principal 
Powers,  Goodness  and  Authority ;  that  by  Goodness  all 

*  De  Profugis.  I.  5G0,  561.     Respecting  the  Legislative  Powers, 
comp.  De.  Sacrific.  Abel,  et  Caini.  I.  189, 

22* 


258      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

things  are  made,  and  by  Authority  the  creation  is  gov- 
erned ;  and  that  a  third  which  connects  both,  being  in 
the  midst  between  them,  is  Reason  (Logos),  for  by 
Reason  (Logos)  God  both  rules  and  is  good."  # 

These  two  powers  of  God  under  various  names,  some- 
times called  the  Creative  and  the  Regal,  sometimes 
Goodness  and  Authority,  sometimes  the  Beneficent  and 
the  Disciplinary,  often  appear  in  the  writings  of  Philo. 
Sometimes  they  are  spoken  of,  as  in  the  passage  last 
quoted,  in  connexion  with  the  Logos ;  more  frequently 
they  are  denominated  as  the  two  highest  Powers  of  God, 
without  any  mention  of  the  Logos.  To  the  latter,  Philo, 
as  we  have  seen,  does  not  apply  the  name  '  God '  in 
its  highest  sense  ;  but  of  these  two  Powers  he  repeatedly 
says,  that  the  proper  name  of  the  Creative,  the  name 
given  it  by  Moses,  is  '  God,'  and  the  name  of  the  Regal, 
'Lord.'f 

When  these  Powers  are  spoken  of  by  Philo  as  sub- 
jected to  the  Logos,  if  he  regarded  the  Logos  as  a 
person,  it  is  clear  that  he  regarded  them  as  persons  also ; 
for  he  would  not  have  subjected  them,  considered  merely 
as  the  attributes  of  God,  to  the  Logos,  considered  as  a 
person  distinct  from  God. 

But  the  idea  of  the  conversion  of  an  attribute  or  power 
of  God  into  a  person  had  acquired  no  such  fixedness  and 
permanent  form  in  the  speculations  of  Philo,  as  in  the 

*  De  Cherubim.  I.  143,  144. 

t  I  refer  to  some  other  of  the  passages  in  which  they  are  men- 
tioned. De  Sacrific.  Abelis  et  Caini.  I.  173,  174.  De  Planta- 
tion. I.  342.  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  I.  425.  De  Migrat.  Abra- 
ham. I.  464.  Quis  Rerum  div.  Hseres.  I.  496.  De  Nominum 
Mutatione.  I.  581  —  583.  De  Somniis.  Lib.  i.  Opp.  I.  645.  De  Sa- 
crificant.  11.  258.     De  Legatione  ad  Caium.  II.  546;. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  259 

Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  or  in  Ptolemy's  system 
of  iEons.  Accordingly  the  two  highest  Powers  of  God, 
whose  names  are  '  God '  and  '  Lord,'  may  seem  often  to  be 
only  two  aspects  or  characters  under  which  he  regarded 
the  Supreme  Being.  After  having  spoken  of  them,  by 
the  names  of  the  Creative  and  Regal,  as  symbolized  by 
the  two  Cherubim  overshadowing  the  Mercy-seat,  and 
entitled  them,  as  usual,  '  God  '  and  '  Lord,'  he  defends  his 
explanation  by  saying ;  "  For  God,  being  indeed  alone, 
is  truly  a  Creator,  since  he  brought  into  being  the  things 
which  were  not,  and  a  King  by  nature,  for  none  can  more 
justly  rule  what  is  made,  than  he  who  made  it."  *  "  It 
is  customary,"  he  says  in  another  place,  "to  use  two 
appellations  of  the  First  Cause,  that  of  '  God'  and  that  of 
'Lord.'"-)-  Yet  there  is  no  passage  in  his  writings  which 
seems  more  clearly  to  resolve  them  into  mere  attributes 
or  characters  of  God,  than  one  which  is  followed  by 
such  a  description  of  their  personal  agency,  as  necessarily 
implies  the  conception  of  their  being  persons  distinct 
from  God.  It  is  in  his  book  concerning  Abraham ;  where 
he  is  allegorizing  the  appearance  of  the  three  angels  to 
Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre.  When  the  soul,  he 
says,  is  circumfused  by  divine  light,  it  discerns  three 
appearances  of  one  object,  the  appearance  of  One  as 
properly  existing,  and  of  two  others  as  shadows  rayed 
forth  from  Him,  as  we  sometimes  in  the  world  of  the 
senses  see  two  shadows  of  a  material  object.  Of  these 
appearances,  that  in  the  midst  is  the  Father  of  All,  He 
who  Is ;  those  on  each  side  are  his  two  most  venerable 
Powers,  the  nearest  to  himself,  the  Creative,  God,  and 

*  De  Mose.  Lib.  in.  Opp.  II.  150. 
t  Quis  Rerura  div.  Haeres.  I.  47G. 


260      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS, 

the  Regal,  Lord.  Philo  then  adds,  that  God  thus  at- 
tended presents  sometimes  one  and  sometimes  three  im- 
ages to  the  mental  vision  ;  one,  when  the  soul,  thoroughly 
purified,  rises  above  all  idea  of  plurality  to  that  un min- 
gled form  of  being  which  admits  of  no  mixture,  alone, 
and  wholly  independent ;  three,  before  it  is  yet  initiated 
in  the  greater  mysteries,  and  cannot  contemplate  Him 
who  Is,  by  himself  alone,  but  needs  the  aid  of  something 
beside,  and  views  him  through  his  works  as  either  creat- 
ing or  ruling.  * 

Philo  would  here  seem  to  intend,  that  the  language 
concerning  the  two  principal  Powers  of  God,  when  they 
are  spoken  of  as  distinct  persons,  is  but  a  figurative  mode 
of  representing  the  operations  of  the  Divine  Being,  ac- 
commodated to  the  weakness  of  those  who  cannot  com- 
prehend him  as  he  is.  But,  as  he  proceeds,  in  his 
earnestness  to  prove  that  the  account  of  the  three  angels 
who  appeared  to  Abraham  is  to  be  allegorized  as  relating 
to  God  and  his  two  attendant  Powers,  he  presents  an 
opposite  view.  In  the  narrative  of  the  destruction  of 
Sodom,  which  immediately  follows,  only  two  angels  are 
mentioned.!  This,  in  his  opinion,  confirms  his  mode  of 
interpreting  the  preceding  account.  He  who  had  with- 
drawn himself  was  God,  the  two  who  remained  were  his 
two  Powers,  God  judging  it  fit  to  bestow  favors  immedi- 
ately from  himself,  but  to  commit  to  the  ministry  of  his 
Powers  the  infliction  of  punishment.  The  Beneficent 
(another  name,  it  will  be  recollected,  for  the  Creative) 
and  the  Disciplinary  (or  Regal)  were  both  present,  the 

*  De  Abrahamo.  II.  18, 19.  comp.  De  Sacraficiis  Abelis  et   Caini. 
1. 173,  174. 

t  Genesis,  xix.  1.  seq. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  261 

former  to  preserve  the  city  of  Zoar  which  was  saved, 
and  the  latter  to  destroy  the  four  other  cities  of  the  plain.* 
To  God  thus  using  the  ministry  of  his  Powers,  Philo 
compares  human  kings  who  bestow  favors  in  person,  but 
punish  by  the  ministry  of  others,  f 

By  this  and  by  other  similar  representations,  Philo 
shows  that  he  did  often,  if  not  uniformly,  image  to  him- 
self the  Powers  of  God  as  agents  distinct  from  God. 
But  how  fluctuating  were  his  conceptions,  may  appear 
not  only  from  the  seeming  discrepancy  between  the 
former  and  the  latter  part  of  the  passage  I  have  quot- 
ed, but  from  the  absence  of  all  mention  of  the  Logos 
in  this  discussion  concerning  what  he  here  and  else- 
where calls  the  two  highest  Powers  of  God. 

When,  however,  the  light  of  his  philosophy  shone 
full  around  him,  Philo  discerned  not  merely  those  hy- 
postatized  Powers  of  God  that  have  been  mentioned, 
but  many  others,  far  exceeding  in  number  the  Gnostic 
iEons.  To  state  a  fact  for  which,  strange  as  it  is,  what 
precedes  may  afford  some  preparation,  Philo,  as  a  Pla- 
tonist,  hypostatized,  generally,  the  Powers  of  God.  In 
commenting  upon  the  history  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  he 
inquires  whom  God  addressed,  when  he  said  ;  Come  let 
us  go  down,  and  there  confuse  their  language.  "He 
appears,"  he  says,  "  to  be  addressing  some  as  fellow- 
workers."  But  God  is  the  only  Maker  and  Father  and 
Lord  of  the  LTniverse.  How,  then,  are  the  words  to  be 
explained  ?  God,  he  answers,  being  one,  is  surrounded  by 
innumerable  Powers,  all  employed  for  the  service  and 
benefit  of  the  creation.     On  these  Powers,  the  angels  are 

*  Comp.  Genesis,  xiv.  2,  3.  t  De  Abrahamo.  II.  21,  22. 


262       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

attendant  ministers,  and  the  whole  army  of  each  is  under 
the  direction  of  God.  "  It  is  proper,  then,  that  the  King 
should  hold  converse  with  his  Powers,  and  use  their 
ministry  in  such  acts  as  it  is  not  fitting  that  God  should 
effect  alone. ';  "  Perceiving  what  was  suitable  for  him- 
self and  his  creatures,  he  has  left  some  things  to  be 
wrought  out  by  his  subject  Powers ;  not  granting  them, 
however,  independent  authority  to  complete  any  thing 
by  their  own  skill,  lest  some  error  should  be  introduced 
into  the  works  of  creation."  * 

After  so  clear  an  expression  on  the  part  of  Philo  of 
his  conception  of  the  Powers  of  God,  as  personal  agents 
distinct  from  God,  it  is  unnecessary  either  to  proceed 
with  the  passage  which  I  have  quoted,  in  which  this 
conception  is  further  developed,  or  to  produce  at  length 
others  to  the  same  effect,  f 

We  pass  to  other  conceptions  of  Philo,  conceptions 
which  present  new  analogies  to  the  Valentinian  system 
of  iEons.  As  he  who  is  about  to  build  a  city  forms  a 
plan  of  it  in  his  own  mind,  so  Gocl,  according  to  Philo, 
before  the  work  of  creation,  formed  in  his  own  Logos,  or 
mind,  a  plan  of  the  Universe.  This  was  the  Intelligible 
World,  the  world  of  Platonic  Ideas,  the  archetypal 
world,  the  pattern  of  the  visible.  So  far  there  is  nothing 
particularly  unintelligible.  But  Philo  immediately  con- 
verts the  world  of  Ideas  into  the  Divine  Logos  itself; 
and  the  confusion  becomes  at  first  view  inextricable. 

*  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  I.  430  —  433. 

t  The  following  passages  may  be  consulted  upon  this  subject.  De 
Mundi  Opificio.  I.  16,  17.  De  Plantatione  I.  336,  337.  De  Confu- 
sione Linguarum  I.  425.  De  Migrat.  Abrahami  1. 464.  De  Profugis. 
I.  556.     De  Legat.  ad  Caium.  II.  546. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  263 

After  comparing  the  archetypal  world  to  the  plan 
which  an  architect  forms  of  a  city  that  he  is  about  to 
build,  and  representing  its  seat  to  be  the  Divine  Logos 
(or  Intellect),  Philo  presents  the  other  apparently  very 
different  conception  just  mentioned.  "  To  speak  plainly," 
he  says,  "the  intelligible  world  [the  world  of  Ideas]  is 
nothing  else  than  the  Logos  of  the  Creator,  as  the  intel- 
ligible city  is  only  the  process  of  thought  in  the  architect, 
considering  how  to  form  a  sensible  city  by  means  of  an 
intelligible.  This  is  not  my  doctrine,  but  that  of  Moses. 
For  in  describing  the  production  of  man,  he  declares 
expressly,  that  he  was  formed  after  the  Image  of  God ; 
[that  is,  after  the  Logos,  whom  Philo  considers  as  the 
Image  of  God.]  But  if  a  part  be  an  image  of  that 
Image  [the  Logos],  it  is  clear  that  all  of  the  same  kind, 
the  whole  sensible  world,  which  is  greater  than  man,  is 
a  copy  of  the  Divine  Image.  And  it  is  manifest  that 
the  archetypal  seal,  which  we  say  was  the  intelligible 
world,  must  be  the  archetypal  exemplar,  the  Idea  of 
Ideas,  the  Logos  of  God."  * 

"God,"  says  Philo  in  another  place,  "gave  form  to 
the  formless  substance  of  all  things  [primitive  matter], 
he  stamped  a  character  upon  what  bore  no  character,  he 
fashioned  what  was  without  qualities,  and  bringing  the 
world  to  perfection  put  upon  it  his  seal,  his  Image,  his 
Idea,  his  own  Logos."  f 

Thus  according  to  one  conception  of  Philo,  the  Logos 
was  the  hypostatized  Intellect  of  God,  the  former  and 
the  seat  of  the  archetypal  world ;  according  to  another, 

*  De  Mundi  Opificio.  I.  5. 

t  De  Somniis.  Lib.  n.  Opp.  I.  G65.  On  this  subject  see  also  Legg. 
Allegorr.  Lib.  in.  Opp.  I.  106.    De  Profugis.  I.  547,  548. 


264      OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

he  was  himself  the  archetypal  world.  The  solution  of 
this  problem  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  Philo  regarded 
the  hypostatized  Powers  (or  attributes)  of  God  as  them- 
selves constituting  the  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world, 
and,  viewed  in  this  aspect,  as  all  contained  in  and  em- 
braced under  the  Logos,  the  most  generic  of  Ideas. 

He  says,  that  when  Moses  desired  to  see  the  glory  of 
God,   that  is,   the   Powers  encompassing   God,    "  God 
answered  him,  The  Powers  which  you  desire  to  see  are 
altogether  invisible  and  intelligible  [that  is,  objects  of 
intellect  alone],  I  myself  being  invisible  and  intelligible. 
I  call  them  intelligible,  not  as  if  they  had  as  yet  been 
comprehended  by  intellect,  but  because,  if  it  be  possible 
they  should  be  comprehended,  it  cannot  be  by  sense, 
but  by  intellect  in  its    highest    state  of  purity.     But 
though  their  essence  is  thus  incomprehensible,  they  give 
forth  to  view  impressions  and  images  of  their  energy. 
For  as  the  seals  used  by  men  stamp  countless  impres- 
sions upon  wax  or  any  similar  material,  without  losing 
any  thing  of  their  substance,  so  it  is  to  be  understood 
that  the  Powers  around  me  give  qualities  to  things  with- 
out quality,  and  forms  to  things  without  form,  their  eter- 
nal nature  remaining  unchanged  and  without  loss.     Some 
among  men  not  improperly  call  them  Ideas.     They  con- 
fer upon  each  being  its  peculiar  properties. #     To  the 
disorderly,  the  boundless,  the  undefined,  the   formless, 
[that  is,  to  primitive  matter,]  they  give  order  and  bounds 
and  limits  and  form,  changing  altogether  the  worse  into 
the  better."  f 

*  The  original  of  this  and  the  preceding  sentence  does  not  admit 
of  a  literal  translation.  It  is  as  follows  :  'Qiopa&vffi  V  abrks  ovx  uro 
ffxoTou  <rms  ruv  <ra.g  vp,7v  Wiets,  i^-ti^h  ixutrrov  rui  ovrut  Tbtotfoiourt.^ 

t  De  Monorchia,  Lib.  i.  Opp.  II.  218,  219. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  265 

"It  was  not  fit,"  according  to  Philo,  "  that  God  him- 
self should  mould  the  boundless  and  chaotic  mass  of 
matter  ;  but  by  means  of  his  incorporeal  Powers,  whose 
proper  name  is  Ideas,  he  gave  to  every  kind  of  thing  the 
form  suitable  to  it."  * 

This  doctrine  concerning  the  Powers  of  God,  as  the 
archetypal  Ideas  of  all  created  things,  was  so  connected 
in  the  imagination  of  Philo,  when  he  wrote  this  passage, 
with  his  belief  in  God  as  the  creator  of  all  things,  that 
he  represents  it  as  an  impiety  scarcely  less  than  atheism 
to  deny  it. 

The  imaginations  of  Philo  concerning  the  Powers  of 
God,  as  Ideas  of  the  archetypal  world,  were  not  peculiar 
to  himself.  They  appear  in  the  speculations  of  others 
among  the  later  disciples  of  Plato,  and  seem  to  have 
extensively  prevailed. 

"  Some  of  the  Platonists  and  Pythagoreans,"  says 
Cudworth,  "  declaring  the  second  hypostasis  of  their 
Trinity  [Intellect,  Nous,  answering  to  the  Logos  of  Philo] 
to  be  the  archetypal  world,  or,  as  Philo  calls  it,  the 
world  that  is  compounded  and  made  up  of  Ideas,  and 
containeth  in  it  all  those  kinds  of  things  intelligibly  that 
are  in  this  lower  world  sensibly  ;  and  further  concluding, 
that  all  these  several  Ideas  of  this  archetypal  world  are 
really  so  many  distinct  substances,  animals  and  gods, 
have  therefore  made  that  second  hypostasis  not  to  be  one 
God,  but  a  congeries  and  heap  of  Gods."  f  These 
Ideas  were  conceived  of  as  existing  in  God,  as  Ideas  of 
God.  They  are,  in  the  language  of  Philo,  the  Powers 
of  God,  causing  all  things  in  the  created  universe  to  be 


*  De  Sacrificantibus.  II.  2G1. 
t  Intellectual  System,  p.  553. 

23 


266  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

what  they  are.  They  are,  as  Cudworth  says,  "  animals 
and  gods,"  that  is,  in  other  terms,  divine  persons.  For 
farther  illustration  of  this  subject,  I  refer  to  the  chapter 
I  have  quoted,  the  fourth  of  the  "  Intellectual  System," 
without,  however,  intending  to  imply  any  general  assent 
to  the  remarks  and  inferences  of  Cudworth. 

Having  long  since  passed  the  bounds  of  all  sober  spec- 
ulation, we  may,  perhaps,  be  prepared  for  the  strange 
chaos  of  opinions  which  has  at  last  opened  upon  us, 

"  congeslaque  eodem 
Non  bene  junctarum  discordia  semina  rerura." 

The  description  of  the  poet  may  be  still  further  applied 
to  these  ancient  doctrines  : 

"Lucis  egens  aer:  nulli  sua  forma  manebat : 
Obstabatque  aliis  aliud." 

The  imagination  of  Philo,  with  which  we  have  at 
present  most  concern,  is  that  by  which  he  converted  the 
attributes  of  God  into  proper  persons.  The  same  con- 
ception, if  conception  it  may  be  called,  the  same  form- 
less aggregate  of  antagonizing  ideas,  is  one  which  has 
made  its  apparition  in  various  systems.  It  appears,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  the  theories  of  the  later  Platonists.  It 
was,  as  I  am  about  to  show,  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,  as  held  by  the  Fathers  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies. It  is  the  key  to  the  Gnostic  system  of  iEons, 
the  derivative  iEons  being  attributes  and  Ideas  hypos- 
tatized.  It  is  the  essential  principle  of  the  speculations 
of  the  Jewish  Cabbalists  concerning  the  Divinity ;  and 
through  connexions,  which  as  yet  have  not  been  traced, 
it  presents  itself  broadly  developed  in  the  theology  of 
the  Bramins. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  267 

Of  the  obscure  system  of  the  Gnostic  JEons,  it  would 
be  out  of  place  here  to  enter  into  any  farther  explana- 
tion, than  has  been  incidentally  given.  Between  the 
speculations  of  the  Cabbalists  and  those  of  Philo  and 
the  later  Platonists,  there  is  much  coincidence,  particu- 
larly as  regards  the  topic  before  us.  "  The  Cabbalists," 
says  Basnage,  "  regarding  God  as  an  infinite,  incompre- 
hensible essence,  between  which  and  created  things 
there  can  be  no  immediate  communication,  have  imag- 
ined that  he  has  made  himself  known,  and  has  operated, 
by  his  perfections  which  have  emanated  from  him."  "  It 
is  their  style,"  he  says,  "  to  speak  of  the  perfections  of 
God  as  of  persons  different  from  his  essence."  *  The 
first  and  greatest  of  the  emanations  from  him,  they  denom- 
inate '  Adam  Kadmon.'  It  is  in  him  that  the  Powers  of 
God  are  manifested ;  he  is  the  source  of  all  subsequent 
existence.  He  corresponds  to  the  Logos  of  Philo  and 
the  Christian  Fathers,  and  to  the  Nous  or  Intellect  of  the 
later  Platonists  and  Gnostics.  He  was  the  prototype  of 
man,  as  the  Logos  is  represented  by  Philo.  Through 
him  were  developed  ten  attributes  of  the  Divinity,  de- 
nominated '  Sephiroths '  or  c  Splendors,'  each  having  its 
appropriate  name.  These  emanations  are  the  hyposta- 
tized  Pow7ers  of  God,  through  which  he  is  manifested. 

In  the  chapter  from  which  I  have  quoted,  Basnage  is 
disposed  to  regard  the  whole  system  of  the  Cabbalists 
as  an  allegory,  and  their  language  concerning  the  per- 
sonal character  of  the  Sephiroths  as  figurative.  But  he 
says ;  "  They  push  their  allegories  so  far  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  follow  them ;  they  so  frequently  speak  of  these 
perfections  as  of  so  many  different  persons,  that  the 

*  Histoire  des  Juifs.  Liv.  in.  c.  14, 


268  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

greatest  attention  is  necessary  not  to  be  deceived. "  If, 
however,  the  Cabbalists  had  not  conceived  of  these  per- 
fections as  proper  persons,  they  would  not  have  repre- 
sented them  as  emanating.  Basnage,  indeed,  seems  to 
have  abandoned  this  view  of  their  system  in  a  subse- 
quent volume ;  *  in  which  he  supposes  the  Cabbalists  to 
have  viewed  them  as  emanant  condensations  of  that 
divine  light,  which,  according  to  them,  was  the  substance 
of  God,  "having  a  kind  of  existence  separate  from  him, 
though  always  near  him."  In  the  chapter  from  which 
I  have  last  quoted,  he  states  that  they  believed  in  four 
modes  of  creation,  or  the  production  of  being.  The 
first  of  these  was  emanation  from  the  substance  of  God. 
The  Sephiroths  were  placed  by  them  in  the  World  of 
Emanations,  corresponding  to  the  Pleroma  of  the  Gnos- 
tics. The  Cabbalists  held  that  there  was  but  one  sub- 
stance in  the  universe,  that  of  God ;  a  fundamental 
doctrine  in  the  theology  of  the  Hindoos.  Hence  they 
would  ascribe  real  personality  to  the  Sephiroths,  equally 
as  to  other  beings  composed  of  this  one  substance.  It 
is  the  certainty  that  the  Sephiroths  were  attributes  of 
God,  and  the  actual  impossibility  of  an  attribute  being  a 
person,  that  has  led  to  the  ineffectual  attempts  to  alle- 
gorize their  system.  A  similar  cause  has  operated  in 
the  same  way  in  regard  to  other  systems  of  a  like  kind, 
especially  that  of  the  Gnostics.  But  the  truth  is,  that 
in  all  these  systems  the  attributes  of  God  were  regarded 
both  as  attributes  and  as  persons,  or,  to  express  the  im- 
agination by  a  single  term,  as  hypostatized  attributes. 

In  respect  to  the  mythology  of  the  Hindoos,  every 
one  who  has   given  attention  to   the  subject  is   aware,, 

*  Liv.  iy.  c.  8. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  269 

that  one  of  its  most  distinguishing  features  is  the  hypos- 
tatizing  of  the  attributes  and  manifestations  of  the  Deity. 
One  Supreme  Being  is  recognised,  but  no  worship  is 
paid  him.  He  manifests  himself,  it  is  supposed,  under 
three  hypostases,  as  the  Creator,  Brahma  ;  the  Preserver, 
Vishnu  ;  and  the  Destroyer,  or  Changer  of  Forms,  Siva ; 
with  their  accompanying  Energies,  likewise  hypostatized 
as  females.  Either  Siva  or  Vishnu,  alone,  or  both  in 
connexion,  to  the  exclusion  of  Brahma,  are  at  the  present 
day  worshipped  as  Supreme.  To  all  three,  and  to  the 
goddesses  who  are  associated  with  them,  are  ascribed 
personal  characters  and  personal  actions,  and  such  too  as 
are  most  abhorrent  to  our  conceptions  of  the  Divinity. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  divine  attributes  hyposta- 
tized by  the  Hindoos.  "  The  Ved  having,  in  the  first 
instance,  personified  all  the  attributes  and  powers  of  the 
Deity,  and  also  the  celestial  bodies  and  natural  elements, 
does,  in  conformity  to  the  idea  of  personification,  treat  of 
them  in  the  subsequent  passages  as  if  they  were  real 
beings,  ascribing  to  them  birth,  animation,  senses,  and 
accidents,  as  well  as  liability  to  annihilation."  * 

The  author  from  whom  I  have  made  the  last  extract, 
one  of  the  most  enlightened  men  whom  India  or  the 
world  has  produced,  in  his  labors  to  reclaim  his  country- 
men from  idolatry,  has  shown  that  the  Vedas  teach  the 
existence  and  worship  of  him  who  is  alone  God.  This, 
however,  does  not  prove  that  the  writers  might  not  con- 
ceive of  his  attributes  as  proper  persons ;  for  Philo,  and 
the  Cabbalists,  and  the  Gnostics  all  affirmed  the  unity 
of  God.     The  Hindoo  theists  represent  all  finite  spirits 

*  Rammohun  Roy.     Second  Defence  of  the  Monotheistical  Sys» 
tern  ©f  the  Veds.  p.  17,  note. 

23* 


270  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

as  portions  of  God's  substance,  as  the  flames  of  separate 
candles  are  each  a  portion  of  elemental  fire;  or  as  the 
numberless  reflections  of  the  sun's  rays  are  only  modi- 
fications of  his  light. 

In  endeavouring  to  apprehend  the  process  of  thought, 
that  has  thus  led  to  the  hypostatizing  of  the  powers  and 
attributes  of  the  Divinity,  it  may  perhaps  assist  us,  if 
we  recollect  the  manner  in  which  the  human  mind  has 
been  decomposed,  and  its  faculties,  affections,  and  rela- 
tions personified.  The  qualities,  acts,  and  even  suffer- 
ings of  real  persons  are  familiarly  ascribed  to  them. 
We  speak  of  being  governed  by  Reason,  and  of  Reason 
as  bewildered ;  Hope  cheers  and  leads  us  on  ;  Imagina- 
tion pictures  for  us  fairer  scenes  than  reality  presents ; 
the  voice  of  Duty  is  to  be  obeyed  without  hesitation ; 
and  Conscience  is  the  vicegerent  of  God  within  us.  All 
such  expressions  we  recognise  at  once  as  merely  figura- 
tive ;  because  we  are  too  well  acquainted  with  the  sub- 
ject to  which  they  relate  to  understand  them  otherwise. 
We  may  regard  reason  as  a  faculty  of  the  mind,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  image  reason  to  ourselves  as  a  person, 
without  difficulty  or  absurdity.  But  in  relation  to  sub- 
jects that  present  any  considerable  degree  of  obscurit}^ 
as,  for  instance,  the  mind  of  God,  nothing  is  more  com- 
mon than  for  figurative  language  to  harden,  if  I  may  so 
speak,  into  literal.  An  imagination  is  easily  transformed 
into  a  supposed  apprehension.  There  is  a  tendency  in 
every  idea  that  dwells  long  in  the  mind  to  assume  a 
character  of  reality.  To  the  admission  of  metaphors, 
as  literal  truths,  is  to  be  ascribed  a  great  part  of  the 
errors  and  follies,  and  consequently  of  the  vices,  of  men. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  271 

These  errors,  too,  it  is  often  difficult  to  expel ;  for  when 
the  imaginary  conception  that  has  intruded  itself  out  of 
place,  is  hardly  pressed,  it  may  assume  for  the  moment 
its  proper  character,  and  retreat  into  its  own  sphere, 
ready  to  return  and  reassume  its  reign  whenever  the 
conflict  is  over. 

We  come  now  to  the  purpose  for  which  I  have  entered 
into  the  preceding  explanations.  We  have  seen  how 
extensively  the  doctrine  has  prevailed  of  hypostatized 
attributes  of  God.  This  doctrine  is  in  itself  so  unintel- 
ligible, and  is  so  foreign  from  the  philosophy  of  the 
present  day,  that  it  is  not  strange  that  the  fact  of  its 
prevalence,  and  even  of  its  existence,  has  been  but 
imperfectly  apprehended ;  and  that  modern  inquirers, 
when  they  perceived  that  some  object  of  thought  was 
regarded  as  an  attribute  of  God,  have  supposed  that 
it  could  not  also  be  regarded  as  a  proper  person.  But 
there  is  no  doubt,  that  these  conceptions,  however 
incongruous,  have  been  brought  together.  It  was  in 
this  mode  of  apprehending  the  Divine  Being  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  its  origin.  The  Logos  of 
the  first  four  centuries  was  in  the  view  of  the  Fathers 
both  an  attribute  or  attributes  of  God,  and  a  proper 
person.  Their  philosophy  was,  in  general,  that  of  the 
later  Platonists,  and  they  transferred  from  it  into  Chris- 
tianity this  mode  of  conception. 

In  treating  of  this  fact,  so  strange,  and  one  which  will 
be  so  new  to  many  readers,  I  will  first  quote  a  passage 
from  Origen,  the  coincidence  of  which  with  the  concep- 
tions of  Philo  and  the  later  Platonists  is  apparent.  In 
commenting  on  the  introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  he 


212  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS, 

makes,  as  I  have  before  said,  #  a  distinction  between  the 
Wisdom  and  the  Logos  of  God,  and  supposes  his  Logos 
to  be  comprehended  in  his  Wisdom.  The  Son,  or  Christ, 
he  represents  as  both  the  Logos  and  Wisdom  of  God. 
Of  the  Wisdom  of  God  he  thus  speaks :  f  "  Nor  must 
we  omit  that  Christ  [or  Jesus,  for  Origen  uses  the  names 
indiscriminately,]  is  properly  the  Wisdom  of  God ;  and 
is,  therefore,  so  denominated.  For  the  Wisdom  of  the 
God  and  Father  of  All  has  not  its  being  in  bare  concep- 
tions, analogous  to  the  conceptions  in  human  minds. 
But  if  any  one  be  capable  of  forming  an  idea  of  an  in- 
corporeal being  of  diverse  forms  of  thought,  which 
comprehend  the  logoi  [the  archetypal  forms]  of  all 
things,  a  being  indued  with  life,  and  having,  as  it  were, 
a  soul,  he  will  know  that  the  Wisdom  of  God,  who  is 
above  every  creature,  pronounced  rightly  concerning  her- 
self; The  Lord  created  me,  the  beginning,  his  way  to 
his  worTcs"  J 

In  this  passage  the  proper  wisdom  of  God  is  hyposta- 
tized,  and  described  as  the  Logos  of  Philo,  or  the  Nous 
(Intellect)  of  the  later  Platonists.  A  little  after,  there 
is  the  following  account  of  the  Logos  and  other  Powers 
of  God  as  hypostatized,  corresponding  equally  with  the 
conceptions  of  Philo  and  the  Platonists.  Having  de- 
clared the  Logos  to  be  comprehended  in  the  Wisdom  of 
God,  he  goes  on  to  teach,  that  it  has  still  "  a  proper  dis- 
tinct being  of  its  own,  so  as  to  possess  life  in  itself."  In 
order  to  comprehend  this,  he  says,  "  we  must  speak  not 
only  of  the  Power,  but  of  the  Powers  of  God.      Thus 


*  See  before,  p.  253,  note.  -j-  Opp.  IV.  39,  40. 

\  Prov.  viii.  22.,  according  to  some  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  or 
other  Greek  translation,  used  by  Origen. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  273 

says  the  Lord  of  the  Powers,  *  is  an  expression  which 
often  occurs,  in  which  by  c  Powers '  is  meant  certain 
living  beings,  rational  and  divine,  the  highest  and  best  of 
whom  is  Christ,  who  is  called  not  merely  the  Wisdom, 
but  the  Power  of  God.  There  being,  then,  many 
Powers  of  God,  each  of  whom  has  his  distinct  being, 
and  all  of  whom  the  Saviour  excels,  Christ  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  Logos  [the  Supreme  Reason  over  all 
the  other  rational  Powers],  having  his  personal  exist- 
ence in  the  Beginning,  that  is,  in  Wisdom  ;  differing  from 
that  Reason  which  exists  in  us,  and  has  no  distinct  being 
out  of  us."  j- 

Obscure  as  these  passages  may  be  to  one  not  familiar 
with  the  conceptions  and  language  of  the  philosophy  to 
which  they  belong,  they  are  still  sufficiently  clear  as  to 
the  main  point  which  they  have  been  brought  to  estab- 
lish. It  is  a  fact,  however,  which  has  not  been,  under 
any  of  its  aspects,  adverted  to  by  a  great  majority  of 
writers,  who  have  treated  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. Of  the  notices  relating  to  it,  there  is  one  by 
Clarke  in  his  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  %  which 
it  may  be  worth  while  to  bring  forward,  before  adducing 
further  quotations  from  the  Fathers.  I  present  it  in  a 
somewhat  abridged  form. 

"Of  the  writers,"  he  says,  "before  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  Theophilus,  Tatian,  and  Athenagoras 
seem  to  have  been  of  the  opinion,  that  the  Word  (the 
Logos)  was  the  internal  Reason  or  Wisdom  of  the  Fa- 
ther; and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  they  speak  as  if  they 

*  Kvpies  ruv  tiwufiiav,  LXX.    The  rendering  of  the  Common  Ver- 
sion is  '  Lord  of  Hosts.' 

t  Opp.  IV.  47.  |  Part.  II.  §  18.  Notes. 


274       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

supposed  that  Word  to  be  produced  or  generated  into  a 
real  Person,  which  is  hardly  intelligible  ;  and  seems  to 
be  the  mixture  of  two  opinions :  the  one,  of  the  gener- 
ality of  Christians  who  believed  the  Word  to  be  a  real 
Person ;  the  other,  of  the  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians, 
who  personated  the  internal  Wisdom  of  God,  or  spoke 
of  it  figuratively  (according  to  the  genius  of  their  lan- 
guage) as  of  a  person. 

"  Irenaeus  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  speak  sometimes 
with  some  ambiguity,  but,  upon  the  whole,  plainly 
enough  understand  the  Word  or  Son  of  God  to  be  a  real 
person. 

"The  other  writers  before  the  Council  of  Nice  do 
generally  speak  of  him  clearly  and  distinctly  as  of  a  real 
person. 

"  About  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  they  spake 
with  more  uncertainty ;  sometimes  arguing  that  the 
Father,  considered  without  the  Son,  would  be  without 
Reason  and  without  Wisdom ;  which  is  supposing  the 
Son  to  be  nothing  but  an  attribute  of  the  Father;  and 
yet  at  other  times  expressly  maintaining,  that  he  was 
truly  and  perfectly  a  Son.  But  the  greater  part  agree 
in  this  latter  notion,  that  he  was  a  real  person. " 

In  this  passage  there  are  two  errors.  The  first  is 
the  implication,  that  the  conception  of  the  Logos  as 
an  attribute  was  more  prevalent  about  the  time  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  than  it  had  been  before.  On 
the  contrary,  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Logos  was 
as  of  an  attribute  of  God.  His  attribute  it  was  conceiv- 
ed to  be,  equally  as  reason  is  an  attribute  of  man.  The 
other  error  is  in  the  supposition,  that  the  Fathers  who 
spoke  of  the  Logos  as  a  person,  could  not  also  have 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  275 

imagined  him  to  be  an  attribute.     The   Fathers  of  the 
fir$t  four  centuries,  generally,  believed  the  Logos  (if  we 
may  so  use  the  word  believe)  to  be  both  an  attribute  and  a 
person.     I  will  quote  a  few  examples  of  their  language. 
Justin  Martyr,   speaking  of  his  l  second  god,'  whom 
I  have  formerly  mentioned,  declares  that  "  this  god,  pro- 
duced from  the   Father  of  All,  is  the  reason  (logos) 
and  wisdom   and  power  of  him  who  produced  him," 
and  immediately  identifies   him  with    Wisdom,   as   per- 
sonified in  the   Proverbs.*     Justin  was  one  of  the  first, 
perhaps  the  first,  Christian  writer  who  gave  a  form  to 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Logos.     His  contemporary, 
Athenagoras,  says,  that  "  the  Son  is  the  intellect  and  the 
reason  (logos)  of  the   Father."     "  He  is  the  first  pro- 
duction of  the  Father,  not  with  reference  to  any  com- 
mencement of  existence  ;  for  from  the  beginning,  God, 
being  the  eternal  mind,  always  had  reason  (logos)  in 
himself,  as  being  eternally  rational  ;  but  with  reference 
to  his   going    forth   [his   emanation   from  God]  ;  to   be 
the  Idea   [the   formative  principle],  and  the  energy  of 
the  formless   nature  of  material  things."  f     Theophilus 
of  Antioch,  another  contemporary,  calls  the  Logos,  "  the 
spirit,  the  wisdom,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  ;  " 

"  the  wisdom  of  God  which  was  in  him  before 

the  world  was,  and  his  holy  reason  (logos)  which  is 
always  with  him."  J  The  Logos,  he  teaches,  "  existed 
always  internally  in  the  mind  of  God.  Before  any 
thing  was  created,  it  was  his  counsellor,  being  his  in- 
tellect and  thought  ;  but  when  God  was  about  to  form 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  267. 

t  Legatio  pro  Christianis.  §  10.  p.  287.  edit.  Paris,  1742. 

t  Ad  Autolycum.  Lib.  n.  §  10.  p.  355.  edit.  Paris,  1742. 


276  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

what  he  had  determined  on,  he  generated  it  externally, 
as  the  First-born  of  the  whole  creation,  not  making 
himself  void  of  reason  (logos),  but  generating  reason, 
and  always  holding  converse  with  his  reason."  * 

On   this   subject  Irenaeus  has  fallen,  if  it  be  possible, 
into    greater    confusion    and    contradictions,    than    the 
other  writers  of  his  age.     He  often  speaks  of  the  Logos 
or  Son  as  of  a  person  distinct  from  God,  and   describes 
him  as  a  minister  of  God's  will.     He,  himself,  says  that 
St.  John  teaches  his  "  effectual "  f  generation,   which, 
according  to   his  use  of  this  language   elsewhere,  must 
mean  his  production  from  the  substance   of  God   as  in 
all  respects   a  proper  person.     But  in  his  zeal  against 
the   Gnostic  doctrine  of  emanation,   he    not  only  uses 
such  language  as  shows  that  he   regarded  the  Logos  as 
an  attribute,  but  such  as  is  inconsistent  with  the  imagi- 
nation of  his  being  any  thing  but  an  attribute.     Refer- 
ring to  the   first  of  the   Gnostic   emanations,  Intellect 
or  Mind,  and  to  the  second,  Logos,  Reason,  he  says ; 
"  The  Father  of  All  is  not  a  composite  being,  something 
else    beside  Mind ;   but   Mind   is  the   Father,   and  the 
Father   is    Mind."      Having    thus    identified    Mind   or 
Intellect  with  the  Father,  he  immediately  proceeds  to 
identify  Intellect  with  Reason  or  the  Logos.  J  In  another 
passage,  he  describes  God   as  being  "  all  Mind  and  all 

Logos." "  His  thought,"  he  says,  "  is  his  Logos, 

and  his  Logos  his  Mind,  and  the  all-embracing  Mind  is 
the  Father  himself."  ||     Speaking  a  little  before  of  the 

*  lb.  §  22.  p.  365, 

t  Efficabilem,  i.  e.  efficacem.  Lib.  m.  cap.  11.  §  8.  comp.  Lib.  II. 
c.  17.  §  2. 

X  Lib.  ii.  c.  17.  §  7.  |]  Lib.  ii.  c.  28.  §  5. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  277 

Gnostic  system  as  consisting  in  transferring  to  God, 
conceptions  of  different  affections  and  faculties  of  the 
human  mind,  he  considers  it  as  irreverent  to  regard  the 
Divinity  as  thus  affected  and  divided,  "  God  being  all 
mind,  all  reason  (ratio,  i.  e.  Logos),  one  operating  spirit, 
all  light,  ever  the  same  without  change."  * 

From  many  passages  which  might  be  quoted  it  is 
my  purpose  only  to  produce  a  few,  in  order  clearly  to 
illustrate  the  conceptions  of  the  Fathers  upon  this  sub- 
ject. Clement  of  Alexandria  says,  "  The  Logos  of  the 
Father  of  all  is  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  made 
most  clearly  manifest,  his  almighty  and  truly  divine 
power,  his  sovereign  will."  f  His  meaning  is  that  the 
Logos  denotes  the  attributes  of  God  as  manifested  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  universe  ;  but  there 
is  no  question  that  he  also  considered  the  Logos  as 
a  person.  By  Tertullian,  Christ  is  described  as  "  the 
power  of  God  and  the  spirit  of  God,  the  discourse 
(sermo),  and  wisdom,  and  reason,  and  Son  of  God."  J 
I  have  quoted  passages  from  Origen  in  which  he 
represents  both  the  Wisdom  of  God,  and  the  Logos  or 
Reason  of  God,  as  living  beings.  In  the  following,  the 
Logos  fades  away  into  a  dim  Platonic  Idea.  "  We  are 
reproached  by  Celsus,"  he  says,  "  for  avoiding  evil 
deeds,  and  reverencing  and  honoring  Virtue  as  produced 

by  God,  and  being  the  Son  of  God If  we  speak 

of  a  second  god,  let  it  be  understood  that  we  mean 
nothing  else,  than  that  Virtue  which  comprehends  all 
virtues  [i.  e.  the  most  generic  Idea  of  virtue]  and  that 
Reason  (Logos)  which  comprehends  the  reasons  of  all 

*  Lib.  ii.  c.  25.  §  4.     See  further  on  this  subject,  Lib.  u.  c.  13. 
t  Stromat.  V.  pp.  646,  647.  \  Apologet.  §  23. 

24 


278       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

things  properly  natural,  and  tending  to  the  good  of  the 
Universe."  *  The  Son,  he  expressly  teaches  elsewhere, 
is  the  Wisdom  of  God  existing  substantially  .f 

Petavius,  in  one  of  the  chapters  of  his  "Theologica 
Dogmata,"  %  discusses  the  question,  "  Whether  the  Son 
is  the  very  wisdom  by  which  the  Father  is  wise  :  " 
An  ipsa  sapientia  qua  Pater  sapiens  est  sit  Films. 
After  showing  that  this  was  the  common  doctrine  of 
the  Fathers  (plerique  sic  existimdsse  videntur),  he 
produces  in  favor  of  the  opposite  opinion,  which  he 
himself  maintains,  only  the  vacillating  authority  of 
Augustin,  who  retracted  on  this  subject  the  common 
opinion  which  he  had  once  asserted.  The  great  argu- 
ment of  Athanasius  and  his  followers  for  the  eternity 
of  the  Logos,  was  that  God,  being  always  rational, 
always  had  Reason  (the  Logos)  within  him.  "  There 
is  no  other  wisdom,"  according  to  Athanasius,  "  in  the 
Father  than  the  Lord  (Christ)."  §  "The  Son,"  he 
says,  "  is  the  very  wisdom,  the  very  reason,  the  very 
power  of  the  Father."  He  was  described  by  others 
as  the  power,  the  omnipotence,  and  the  will,  of  the 
Father.  It  is  unnecessary  in  this  connexion  to  quote 
the  passages  at  length,  1T  or  to  adduce   additional   proof 

*  Contra  Celsum,  Lib.  v.  §  39.  Opp.  I.  608. 

t  In  his  Commentary  on  John  before  quoted,  and  in  his  work  De 
Principiis  Lib.  i.  cap.  2. 

\  De  Trinitate,  Lib.  vi.  cap.  9. 

§  Epistola  Encyclica  contra  Arianos.  §  14.  Opp.  I.  284.  edit.  Bene- 
dict. 

||  Contra  Gentes,  §  46.  Opp.  1.  46 

T  Many  passages  to  this  effect  may  be  found  in  the  first  volume  of 
the  work  of  Petavius,  Lib.  v.  cap.  8.  Respecting  this  whole  topic, 
the  reader  who  wishes  to  pursue  the  inquiry  may  consult  Petavius, 
as  already  referred  to,  and  likewise  De  Trinitate,  Lib.  i.  capp.  3,4,5; 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  279 

of  the  general  fact  maintained.  I  will  only  further 
mention  one  conception,  more  strange  than  those 
already  noticed.  "  Perhaps,"  says  Origen,  "  if  we 
may  venture  to  speculate  still  further,  we  may  conceive 
of  the  Only  Son  as  the  soul  of  God.  For  as  the 
soul  placed  within  the  body  moves  every  part,  and 
excites  all  its  operations,  so  the  Only  Son  of  God, 
who  is  his  reason  (Verbum,  i.  e.  sloyog),  and  wisdom, 
being  placed  within  him,  extends  to  and  reaches  every 
power  of  God."  *  The  extravagance  of  this  imagination 
becomes  perhaps  more  striking,  when  we  compare  it  with 

and  Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  II.  pp.  44  — 144. 
There  are  considerable  errors  in  Priestley,  but  none  such  as  essen- 
tially affect  his  argument,  or  are  likely,  with  one  exception,  much  to 
embarrass  or  mislead  his  reader.  One  is,  that  Philo  regarded  the 
personality  of  the  Logos  as  occasional  only,  a  notion  for  which  there 
is  no  foundation  in  his  works.  But  the  particular  error  to  which  I 
have  referred  is  the  implication  in  several  passages,  that  the  Logos 
conceived  of  as  a  person,  was  not  conceived  of  as  being  at  the  same 
time  an  attribute,  —  that  he  was  only  regarded  as  having  been  first 
an  attribute,  and  then  a  person. 

It  was  indeed,  as  has  been  shown  by  Priestley  and  others,  the  ex- 
press doctrine  of  several  of  the  Fathers,  that  the  Logos,  existing 
primarily  in  God,  was  afterwards  "  generated,"  and  put  forth  as  the 
Son,  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  Father,  to  be  his  agent  in  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world.  The  doctrine  is  thus  expressed,  for  instance,  by 
Prudentius ; 

"  Ex  ore  quamlibet  Patris 

Sis  ortus,  et  Verbo  editus, 

Tamen  paterno  in  pectore 

Sophia  callebas  prius." 

The  Fathers  who  held  this  doctrine  are  commonly  supposed  not  to 
have  ascribed  personality  to  the  Logos  before  his  generation  and 
emanation.  But  they  nowhere,  I  think,  expressly  affirm  that  he 
was  then  not  a  person  ;  and  still  less  is  it  to  be  thought,  that  after 
his  generation,  they  ceased  to  regard  him  as  an  attribute. 
*  De  Principiis,  Lib.  n.  cap.  10.  §  5.  Opp.  I.  96. 


280       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

the  strong  language  of  Origen  concerning  the  inferiority 
of  the  Son  to  the  Father. 

In  all  the  systems  before  mentioned,  in  which  attri- 
butes of  God  have  been  hypostatized,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  later  form  of  Trinitarian  Orthodoxy,  these 
attributes,  when  conceived  of  as  persons,  have  been 
regarded  as  far  inferior  to  God.  The  nature,  indeed, 
and  operations  of  the  attribute  belong  and  are  to  be 
referred  immediately  to  God.  It  is  indifferent  whether 
we  say  that  the  universe  was  created  by  the  disposing 
power  of  the  Supreme  Being,  or  created  by  the  Supreme 
Being,  if  we  use  the  former  term  merely  to  denote  an 
attribute.  But  when  a  personal  character  is  superadded 
to  this  attribute,  then  the  new  being  becomes,  as  a  per- 
son, inferior  to  the  Supreme.  He  is  not  God,  but  a  god 
only.  Still,  in  regard  to  the  Christian  Logos,  his  sub- 
stance being  conceived  of  as  derived  from  the  substance 
of  the  Deity,  as  generated  out  of  it,  a  prolation  or 
emanation  from  it,  like  a  stream  from  a  fountain,  a  branch 
from  a  tree,  or  rays  of  light  from  the  sun ;  he  was  under 
this  aspect,  as  well  as  under  the  relation  of  an  attribute, 
to  a  certain  extent,  identified  with  God  *  by  the  earlier 

*  Thus  it  becomes  not  unfrequently  difficult  to  determine,  in  pas- 
sages in  which  the  name  0soj,  or  Deus,  is  applied  by  the  earlier 
Fathers  to  the  Logos,  or  Son,  or  Christ,  whether  we  are  to  consider 
it  as  an  appellative,  or  as  to  be  referred  through  the  Logos  to  the 
Supreme  Being,  with  whom  the  Logos  is  regarded  as  partially  iden- 
tified. I  am  aware  that  the  phrase  i  partially  identified  '  is  an  ab- 
surdity in  terms  ;  but  the  imagination  of  which  I  speak  was  absurd, 
and  such  language  alone  can  convey  a  just  conception  of  it. 

Hence  the  translation  of  the  passages  referred  to  becomes  a  matter 
of  investigation  and  judgment,  and  often,  from  the  indistinct  and 
varying  signification  of  the  terms  in  question,  and  our  different  use 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  281 

Fathers.     To  a  certain  extent  only,  for,  in  reference  to 
the  totality  of  each,  he  was  regarded  by  them  as  a  being 
far  inferior  to  God.     The  same  inferiority  was  ascribed 
by  the  Gnostics  to  their  derivative  JEons ;  by  the  later 
Platonists  to  the  second  person  in  their  Trinity,  Nous,  or 
Intellect,  considered   in   reference  to  the  first ;   by  the 
Cabbalists  to  their  Sephiroths ;  and  by  the  Hindoos  to  all 
their  hypostatized  attributes.     As  respects  the  Logos, 
the  imagination  of  a  person  predominating  over  that  of 
an  attribute,  and  this  person  being  considered  as  far  infe- 
rior to  God,  the  way  was  opened  for  the  Arian  doctrine, 
which  dropping  the  idea  of  an  attribute,  and  rejecting 
the  belief  that  the  Logos  was  an  emanation  from   the 
substance  of  the  Divinity,  regarded  him  only  as  a  person, 
and  reduced  him  to  the  rank  of  created  beings.     But 
this  produced  a  reaction  on  the  part  of  their  Catholic 
opponents,  who  in  consequence  raised  the  Logos  or  Son 
to  what  they  called  an  equality  with  God,  or  the  Father, 
though  they  considered  it  as  a  derived  and  subordinate 
equality. 

The  illustrations  which  I  have  given  are  far  from  pre- 
senting a  full  view  of  the  confusion  and  incoherence  of 
thought  that  prevailed  among  the  Catholic  Fathers. 
But  they  are,  perhaps,  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact, 
that  the  Logos  was  regarded  by  the  Fathers  both  as  an 
attribute  of  God  and  a  distinct  person ;  corresponding  to 
a  mode  of  conception,  or  rather  an  imagination,  that  has 
spread  widely  through  different  systems  of  theology ;  — 
an  imagination  so  incongruous,    that  those   who   have 

of  the  name  '  God,'  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  explain  their  sense  in 
English  by  a  mere  translation. 

24* 


282       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

treated  of  the  history  of  opinions  seem  often  to  have 
recoiled  from  the  notice  of  it,  or  shrunk  from  acknowl- 
edging its  existence.    The  words  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
conveying  in  fact  no  meaning,  are  apt  to  pass  over  the 
mind  of  a  modern  reader  without  leaving  the  impression, 
that  what  was  considered  as  a  very  important  meaning, 
was  once  attached  to  them.     The  different  aspect  which 
it  gives  to  the  theological  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  from 
what   that  doctrine  has  assumed  in   modern  times,  may 
alone  perhaps  sufficiently  account  for  the  absence  of  all 
mention  of  it  in  the  writings  of  most  of  those  who  have 
adverted  to  the  opinions  of  the  Christian  Fathers  re- 
specting the  Logos.     That  the  conception  of  the  same 
being  as  an  attribute  and  a  person  was  an  object  of  what 
may  strictly  be  called  belief,  is  not  to  be  maintained ; 
for  we   cannot,   properly  speaking,   believe   a  manifest 
contradiction.     But  the  case  was  the  same  with  this  as 
with   many  other   doctrines  that   have   been   zealously 
maintained.     One  part  of  it  was  believed  at  one  time, 
and  another  at  another.     It  was  assented  to  successively, 
not  simultaneously.     When,  of  the  two  contrary  propo- 
sitions embraced  in  the  conception,  one   rose  upon  the 
mind,  the  other  set.     In  speaking  of  such  doctrines  as 
being  believed,  we  intend,  at  most,  what  may  be  called 
an  alternating  belief,  ever  vibrating  between  two  oppo- 
site opinions,  and  attaching  itself,  as  it  is  repelled  or 
attracted,  first  to  the  one  and  then  to  the  other. 

We  will  now  pass  to  another  conception  concerning 
the  Logos.  In  the  creation  of  the  universe,  God  was 
conceived  of  as  having  first  manifested  himself.  But  it 
was  by  his  Disposing  Power,  his  Logos,  that  the  uni- 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  283 

verse  was  created.  By  the  same  Power,  as  his  vicege- 
rent, God  was  regarded  as  governing  all  things.  It  was, 
then,  in  and  by  his  Logos,  that  God  was  manifested. 
Hence  the  Logos,  considered  as  a  person,  the  agent  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  universe,  came  to 
be  regarded  as  an  hypostatized  manifestation  of  God. 
Thus,  also,  the  Gnostics  conceived  of  their  iEons  as 
hypostatized  manifestations  of  God.  I  am  aware  that 
I  use  a  term  without  meaning ;  but  there  is  no  other 
which  will  better  convey  a  notion  of  the  unformed  imagi- 
nations that  once  prevailed  upon  this  subject.  * 

"  The  Logos,"  says  Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  is  the 
face  of  God,  by  which  he  is  illustrated  and  made 
known."  f  The  Gnostics,  with  the  same  meaning, 
called  their  iEon,  '  Intellect,'  the  face  of  God.  J  To 
the  same  conception  of  the  Logos,  as  the  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  must  be  referred  those  numerous  passages  in 
which  he  is  spoken  of  as  the  '  name  of  God,'  the  '  image 
of  God,'  the  'irradiation'  {um/.vyaa^ia)  of  God,  the 
'  vision  '  (oQaoig)  of  God,  the  '  visible  god,'  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  Invisible,  and  as  '  the  uttered  Logos,'  or 
Discourse  of  God. 

This  last  mentioned  conception  of  the  '  uttered  Logos  ' 
appears  particularly  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fa- 
thers, and  deserves  further  notice.  The  term  '  Logos,' 
it  will  be  recollected,  in  one  of  its  primary  significations 
denotes  reason,  or  that  power  by  which  the  mind  arranges 
its  ideas  in  their  proper  relations  to  each  other.     But 

*  See  the  ingenious  and  agreeable  work  of  Souverain,  he  Platon- 
isme  devoile,  in  which,  however,  the  view  of  the  author  is  too 
limited. 

f  Paedagog.  Lib.  I.  c.  7.  p.  132.  \  Doctrina  Orient.  §  10. 


284       OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

when  thus  arranged,  they  may  be  communicated  in  words ; 
and  to  ideas  thus  uttered,  the  term  ' Logos'  was  also  appli- 
ed, being  in  this  sense  equivalent  in  signification  to  '  dis- 
course.' In  the  present  state  of  our  language,  we  have 
no  term  which  answers  to  '  Logos '  in  this  double  mean- 
ing. But  in  the  old  and  now  obsolete  use  of  the  word 
'  discourse '  we  find  the  same  singular  union  of  the  two 
principal  senses  of  Logos ;  that  word  having  been  for- 
merly employed,  not  merely  in  its  present  signification, 
but  to  denote  the  faculty  of  reason.  "  The  act  of  the 
mind,"  says  Glanville,  "  which  connects  propositions 
and  deduceth  conclusions  from  them,  the  schools  call 
Discourse,  and  we  shall  not  miscall  it  if  we  name  it 
Reason." 

To  the  Catholic  Fathers  the  double  meaning  of  the 
word  i  Logos  '*  afforded  a  favorite  illustration  of  the  going 
forth  of  the  Divine  Reason  to  the  work  of  creation. 
Considered  as  previously  existing  with  God,  it  was  de- 
scribed as  '  the  Logos  within  the  mind  of  God,'  '  the  in- 
ternal Logos,'  *  analogous  to  reason,  or  thought,  in  man  ; 
considered  as  the  instrument  of  God  in  the  work  of 
creation,  it  was  spoken  of  as  l  the  uttered  Logos,'  f  analo- 
gous to  words  uttered  by  man. 

The  Latin  Fathers,  having  no  word  in  their  own 
language  which,  like  Logos  in  the  Greek,  embraced  the 
two  significations  of  Reason  and  Discourse,  were  em- 
barrassed in  their  translation  of  it ;  and  hesitated  between 
Ratio,  Reason  ;  Senno,  Discourse  ;  and  Verbum,  Word. 
The  first  was   the  proper  term,  %  but  usage,  from  some 

\  Rationem  Graeci  Xoyav  dicunt,  quo  vocabulo  etiam  scrmonem  ap- 
pellamus.  Ideoque  jam  in  usu  est  nostrorum  [i.  e.  Latinorum],  per 
simplicitatem  interpretationis,  sermonem  dicere  in  primordio  apud 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  285 

cause  which  we  cannot  discover,  at  last  settled  upon  the 
term  '  Word  '  ;  and  this  has  in  consequence  been  adopted 
in  the  theological  dialect  of  modern  times,  as  the  proper 
rendering  of  '  Logos,'  when  used  concerning  the  Deity. 
The  term,  however,  is  wholly  inappropriate  and  unmean- 
ing ;  and  has  served  to  confuse  still  further  a  subject  in 
itself  abundantly  perplexed. 

This  recurrence  to  the  double  meaning  of  the  word 
'  Logos,'  this  conception  of  the  hypostatized  Logos,  or 
the  Son,  as  the  uttered  discourse  or  the  word  of  the 
Father,  or  God,  is  common  throughout  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers.  It  was  an  imagination  of  their  own,  not 
derived  from  Philo,  who,  in  speaking  of  the  Logos  of 
God,  has  reference  only  to  that  signification  of  the  term 
in  which  it  answers  to  '  reason.'  If,  in  treating  this  sub- 
ject, there  be  any  traces  in  his  writings  of  a  reference  to 
the  other  signification  of  the  term  in  which  it  answers 
to  '  discourse,'  they  are,  to  say  the  least,  few  and  doubt- 
ful.    I  think  there  are  none.  *     The  incongruous  junc- 

Deum  fuisse,  cum  magis  rationem  competat  antiquiorem  haberi. 
Tertullian.  advers.  Praxeam.  cap.  5. 

*  The  fact  has  been  remarked  by  Le  Clerc  ;  "  Adi  Philonem 
ubicunque  K'oyov  et  Creationis  Mundi  meminit,  videbisque  de  Ser- 
mone  nusquam  eum  cogitasse,  sed  Rationis  potestatem  animo  praesen- 
tem  habuisse."  Nov.  Test.  Hammondi  et  Clerici.  Ed.  2da.  Tom.  I. 
p.  398.  col.  2. 

Neander,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  History  of  the  principal  Gnos- 
tic Sects  (Genetische  Entwickelung  der  vornehmsten  gnostischen 
Systeme,  p  8.),  says  that  "  Philo,  in  common  with  the  Oriental  the- 
ologians and  the  Gnostics,  distinguishes  between  a  hidden,  incom- 
prehensible Hod,  retired  within  himself,  not  to  be  described  or  im- 
agined, and  the  Manifestation  of  this  Divinity,  as  the  commencement 
of  the  work  of  creation,  and  of  the  developement  of  life;  between 
Jehovah  (o  *>v,  to  J'v)  and  his  Manifestation,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
aggregate  of  all  the  Powers  hidden  within  the  being  of  God."     The 


286        OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LOGOS. 

tion  of  the  idea  of  an  uttered  discourse  or  a  word,  and 
that  of  the  hypostatized  attribute  of  reason,  in  the  con- 
ception of  the  Logos,  is  to  be  found  developed  only  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 

The  confusion  of  ideas  produced  by  this  confusion 
of  the  meanings  of  the  word  '  Logos,'  may  be  easily 
imagined.  Abundant  illustrations  of  it  may  be  found  in 
most  histories  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  I  will 
quote  only  one  passage,  a  sufficient  specimen  perhaps, 
which  I  find  adduced  as  a  satisfactory  answer  to  an  Arian 
objection,  by  a  writer  once  of  some  note,  Dr.  William 
Sherlock.  # 

"  As  for  Christ's  receiving  commands  from  the  Father, 
though  this  relates  to  the  execution  of  his  mediatory 
office,  and  so  concerns  him  as  God  Incarnate,  as  by  the 
dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  he  is  the  minister  of  God's 
will  and  pleasure,  yet  I  grant  even  as  God  he  receives 
commands  from  his  Father,  but  it  is  no  otherwise  than 
as  he  receives  his  nature  from  him :  by  nature  he  is  the 
Word,  the  Wisdom,  the  Command  of  the  Father;  his 
reflex  Image,  whereby  he  produces  all  the  designs  of  his 

meaning  of  the  last  clause,  I  presume,  is  the  aggregate  display  of  all 
the  Powers,  before  hidden  within  the  being  of  God.  But  this  seems 
to  me  not  an  accurate  account  of  the  opinions  of  Philo  ;  and  still  lesa 
can  I  assent  to  what  follows.  "  Philo  had  always  before  his  eyes  the 
opposition  between  iJvai  and  Xiyiaia.^  the  former  denoting  the  exist- 
ence of  God  as  retired  within  himself,  and  the  latter,  his  being 
uttered,  or  manifested."  (Philo  imraer  vor  Augen  hat  den  Gegen- 
satz  zwischen  einem  uvai,  in  sich  selbstseyn,  und  xiytrfai,  ausgespro- 
chen,  geoifenbart  wurden.)  I  think  it  may  be  safely  said,  that  Philo 
nowhere  applies  the  word  xiyitriat  to  God  in  the  sense  supposed,  or 
uses  concerning  him  the  image  in  question. 

*  See  his  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  pp.  154,  155. 


OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS.  287 

own  wisdom  and  counsel  into  act.  Thus  St.  Austin 
answered  the  Arian  objection,  That  Christ  was  but  God's 
instrument,  and  made  the  world  by  God's  command. 
'  Let  them  consider  with  what  other  words  the  Father 
commanded  his  only  Word.  But  they  frame  to  them- 
selves an  imagination  of  two  [persons]  near  one  another, 
but  separated  by  their  distinct  places,  one  commanding, 
another  obeying.  Nor  do  they  understand,  that  the 
Father's  command  itself,  that  all  things  should  be  made, 
is  no  other  Word  of  the  Father,  but  that  by  which 
all  things  are  made ; '  *  that  is,  the  substantial  Word, 
and  Wisdom,  and  Command  of  the  Father,  his  only- 
begotten  Son." 

It  was  from  the  shapeless,  discordant,  unintelligible 
speculations  which  have  been  described,  ex  tantd  colluvie 
rerum,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  drew  its  origin. 
These  speculations  it  is  now  difficult  to  present  under 
such  an  aspect,  as  may  enable  a  modern  reader  to  ap- 
prehend their  character.  But  the  doctrine  to  which 
they  gave  birth  still  subsists,  as  the  professed  faith  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  Christian  world.  And  when  we  look 
back  through  the  long  ages  of  its  reign,  and  consider  all 
its  relations,  and  all  its  direct  and  indirect  effects,  we 
shall  perceive  that  few  doctrines  have  produced  more 
unmixed  evil.  For  any  benefits  resulting  from  its  belief, 
it  would  be  in  vain  to  look,  except  benefits  of  that  kind 

*  Cogitent  quibus  aliis  verbis  jusserit  Pater  unico  verbo.  Formant 
enim  sibi  in  phantasmate  cordis  sui,  quasi  duos  aliquos,  etsi  juxta  in- 
vicem,  in  suis  tamen  locis  constitutos,  unum  jubentern,  alterura 
obtemperantem.  Nee  intelligunt  ipsam  jussionem  Patris  ut  fierent 
omnia,  non  esse  nisi  verburn  Patris,  per  quod  facta  sunt  omnia. — 
Auor.  contr.  Serm.  Arianorum.  Lib.  III. 


288  OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LOGOS. 

which  the  providence  of  God  educes  from  the  follies  and 
errors  of  man. 

It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  little  blame  or 
discredit  attaches  to  those  earlier  Fathers  by  whom  the 
doctrine  was  introduced.  They  only  philosophized  con- 
cerning the  Logos  after  the  fashion  of  their  age.  Their 
only  reproach  is,  that  they  were  not  wiser  than  their 
contemporaries.  In  proceeding  from  the  same  princi- 
ples they  stopped  far  short  of  the  extravagances  of  the 
Gnostics.  Their  speculations,  likewise,  till  after  the 
time  of  Origen,  were  obviously  considered  by  them 
more  as  a  matter  of  philosophy  than  of  faith.  There  is 
sufficient  evidence,  that  before  and  during  his  time,  these 
speculations  took  little  hold  on  the  minds  of  common 
Christians.  "  The  great  body  of  those  who  are  consid- 
ered as  believers,"  says  Origen,  "  knowing  nothing  but 
Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified,  thinking  that  the  Logos 
made  flesh  is  the  whole  of  the  Logos,  are  acquainted 
with  Christ  only  according  to  the  flesh."  * 


*"Etw«/  2s  oi  fztj^tv  t'lhorii  u  f&b  ,\ntfovv  "XgtfTov  Kod  tovtov  IffTOiv^uftivovy 
vol  ytvof&ivov  ffoipKa.  Xoyov  to  tocv  voft'i^ovrts  uvxt  rod  Xoyou,  X^/a-rcy  xetva 
ffxpxct  f&ovov  ytvuffKovfft.  Totovrov  £s  iffn  to  tX%0)s  twi  TtTurTtvKiveti  vofti*- 
Zof&ivvv.     Origen.  Comment  in  Joannem.  Opp.  IV.  53. 


SECTION  XL 

CONCLUSION. 

In  concluding  this  argument,  I  wish  to  make  a  few 
remarks  concerning  those  general  views  of  religion,  that 
I  have  directly  or  indirectly  expressed,  and  which  are 
usually  connected  with  the  opinions  I  have  maintained. 
In  doing  so,  I  shall  drop  the  singular  pronoun,  and  blend 
myself  with  those,  whoever  they  may  be,  whose  senti- 
ments correspond  with  my  own.  I  speak  in  the  name 
of  no  party ;  I  am  responsible  for  no  opinions  which  I 
do  not  express,  and  no  man  is  responsible  for  mine  ;  but 
it  would  be  false  modesty,  or  presumption,  to  regard 
myself  as  standing  alone. 

We,  then,  who  reject  the  whole  system  which  among 
Protestants  has  been  denominated  '  Orthodoxy,'  as  a 
system  of  the  most  pernicious  errors,  are  charged  by  its 
defenders  with  depriving  Christianity  of  all  its  value, 
with  contemning  all  its  peculiar  doctrines,  with  rejecting 
all  but  its  name.  What  is  it,  then,  that  we  believe ; 
and  what  is  it  that  our  opponents  believe  ? 

Christianity,  we  believe,  has  taught  men  to  know 
God,  and  has  revealed  him  as  the  Father  of  his  crea- 
tures. It  has  made  known  his  infinite  perfections,  his 
providence,  and  his  moral  government.  It  has  directed 
us  to  look  up  to  Him  as  the  Being,  on  whom  we  and  all 
25 


290  CONCLUSION. 

things  are  entirely  dependent,  and  to  look  up  to  Him 
with  perfect  confidence  and  love.  It  has  made  known 
to  us  that  we  are  to  live  for  ever;  it  has  brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light.  Man  was  a  creature  of  this  earth, 
and  it  has  raised  him  to  a  far  nobler  rank,  and  taught 
him  to  regard  himself  as  an  immortal  being,  the  child  of 
God.  It  calls  the  sinner  to  reformation  and  hope.  It 
affords  to  virtue  the  highest  possible  sanctions.  It  gives 
to  sorrow  its  best,  and  often  its  only  consolation.  It 
presents  us,  in  the  life  of  our  great  Master,  with  an 
example  of  that  moral  perfection,  which  is  to  be  the 
constant  object  of  our  exertions.  It  has  established  the 
truths  which  it  teaches,  upon  evidence  the  most  satisfac- 
tory. It  is  a  most  glorious  display  of  the  benevolence 
of  the  Deity,  and  of  his  care  for  the  beings  of  this  earth. 
It  has  lifted  the  veil  which  separated  God  from  his  crea- 
tures, and  this  life  from  eternity. 

But  all  this,  it  seems,  is  nothing  ;  unless  it  also  teach, 
that  there  are  three  persons  who  constitute  the  one  God  ; 
or  at  least  that  there  is  some  threefold  distinction,  we 
know  not  what,  in  the  Divinity ;  that  one  of  these  per- 
sons or  distinctions  was  united  in  a  most  incomprehensible 
manner  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  so  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  latter  were  the  sufferings  of  the  former ; 
and  that  it  is  only  through  these  sufferings  of  the  Son 
of  God,  that  we  may  hope  for  the  mercy  of  his  Father. 
The  religion  of  joy  and  consolation  will,  it  is  contended, 
lose  its  value,  unless   it   announce  to  us,   that  we  are 
created  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God ;  that  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  perform  his  will,  unless  our  moral 
natures  be  created  anew ;  and  that  this  is  a  favor  denied 
to  far  the  greater  part  of  men,  who  are  required  to  per- 


CONCLUSION.  291 

form  what  he  has  made  it  morally  impossible  they  should 
perform,  with  the  most  unrelenting  rigor,  and  under 
penalty  of  the  most  terrible  and  everlasting  torments. 
Such  doctrines  as  these,  are  represented  as  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  those  from  which  it  derives  its 
value  ;  and  our  opponents  appear  to  think,  that  if  nothing 
better  was  to  be  effected  than  to  make  God  known  to 
men,  to  reveal  to  them  his  paternal  character,  to  bring 
life  and  immortality  to  light,  and  to  furnish  the  highest 
motives  to  virtue,  it  was  not  worth  while  for  the  Deity 
to  interpose  in  a  special  manner  to  effect  purposes  so 
unimportant. 

The  doctrines  which  we  believe  to  be  established  by 
Christianity,  are  doctrines  of  inestimable  value.  The 
question  of  their  truth  is  one  which  interests  us  most 
deeply.  Our  happiness  and  our  virtue  are  at  stake  on  the 
decision.  If  they  are  not  true,  we  are  miserable  indeed. 
The  brute,  satisfied  with  the  enjoyments  of  the  present 
day,  has  a  preferable  tenure  of  existence  to  that  of  man, 
if  they  are  both  to  perish  together.  But  if  these  doc- 
trines are  true,  there  is  a  prospect  displayed  before  us 
inconceivably  glorious  and  delightful.  They  are  truths 
which  it  was  worthy  of  God  to  teach.  Look  again  at  the 
doctrines  which  we  are  opposing.  Are  these  doctrines  of 
any  importance  or  value  ?  Is  it  important  to  our  virtue 
and  happiness  that  there  should  be  a  threefold  distinction 
in  the  divine  nature  ;  or  that  the  mercy  of  God  which  is 
extended  towards  us,  should  have  been  purchased  with 
the  blood  of  his  Son  ?  Is  it  desirable  for  us  to  be  satis- 
fied that  our  natures  are  so  depraved,  that,  till  they  are 
changed  by  the  act  of  God,  we  can  do  nothing  to  please 
him  ?     Examine  the  creeds  of  what  is  called  Orthodoxy ; 


292  CONCLUSION. 

and  read  the  summary  of  obligations,  which  these  creeds 
teach  us  that  we  lie  under  to  God  as  our  Maker. 
What  obligations  would  be  due  from  his  creatures  to  a 
being  who  had  formed  them  under  his  "  displeasure  and 
curse/'  made  them  "bond-slaves  to  Satan,"  and  "  justly 
liable,"  —  the  absurdity  is  as  gross  as  the  impiety, — 
"  to  all  punishments  in  this  world,  and  in  that  which  is  to 
come."  With  what  feelings  might  such  creatures  justly 
regard  their  Maker?  What  is  the  character  which  they 
would  have  a  right  to  ascribe  to  him  ?  It  would  be 
mockery  to  ask,  if  it  be  desirable  that  this  doctrine 
should  be  true ;  or  if  Christianity  would  lose  its  value, 
should  it  appear  that  it  taught  no  such  doctrine. 

It  is  because  we  have  a  strong  conviction  of  the  ines- 
timable importance  of  true  religion  to  human  virtue 
and  happiness,  and,  therefore,  desire  to  promote  its  influ- 
ence, that  we  wish  men  to  know  and  believe  that  these 
are  not  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  It  is  because  God 
ought  to  be  the  object  of  our  perfect  veneration  and 
love,  that  we  revolt  at  doctrines  which  confound  and 
darken  our  ideas  of  his  nature,  which  represent  one  per- 
son in  the  Deity  as  exacting,  and  another  as  submitting  to 
the  punishment  of  our  offences ;  and  at  other  doctrines 
far  worse  than  these,  which,  if  it  were  possible  for  them 
to  have  their  full  influence  upon  the  mind,  would  make 
God  an  object  of  utter  horror  and  detestation.  We 
believe  that  the  great  truths  of  religion,  taught  by 
Christianity,  are  the  foundation  of  public  and  private 
happiness,  of  the  good  order  of  well  regulated  society, 
of  purity  of  morals,  of  our  domestic  enjoyments,  of  all 
that  is  most  generous  and  most  disinterested  in  the  hu- 
man character,  of  all  those  qualities  which  endear  man 


CONCLUSION.  293 

to  man ;  that  they  make  life  cheerful  and  reconcile  us 
to  death ;  and  that  it  is  on  these  that  the  character  must 
be  formed,  which  will  fit  us  for  heaven  ;  —  and  it  is, 
therefore,  that  we  wish  them  to  be  presented  to  men 
such  as  they  really  are,  free  from  the  gross  errors  which 
human  folly  and  perversity  have  connected  with  them, — 
errors  that  have  prevented  their  reception,  and  essen- 
tially counteracted  their  influence. 

Especially  at  the  present  time,  when,  through  the 
discredit  and  odium  cast  upon  Christianity  by  the  false 
systems  that  have  assumed  its  name,  its  power  has  been 
annihilated  through  a  great  part  of  the  civilized  world, 
and  it  has  come  to  be  regarded  by  a  very  large  portion 
of  the  educated  classes  of  society  as  an  obsolete  super- 
stition, the  call  is  most  imperative  upon  those  to  whom 
the  welfare  of-  their  fellow  men  is  an  object  of  concern, 
to  use  all  means  at  their  command  to  reestablish  its  true 
character.  If  they  are  indeed  engaged  in  supporting 
the  cause  of  true  religion  against  irreligion  and  super- 
stition, then  the  hopes  of  mankind  are  staked  upon  their 
success.  All  efforts  to  promote  the  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity will  be  ineffectual,  till  its  real  character  is  under- 
stood and  acknowledged ;  for  of  all  the  opposition  to 
which  it  is  exposed,  that  which  substitutes  in  its  place 
any  of  those  false  systems  that  have  assumed  its  name, 
is  at  the  present  day  the  most  pernicious.  If  the  doc- 
trines against  which  we  contend  are  false,  then  the 
worst  enemy  of  Christianity  is  he  who  asserts  them  to 
have  been  taught  by  Christ. 

In  concluding  this  work,  I  should  not  speak  of  myself 
personally,  were  it  not  for  the  desire  which  every  reader 
25* 


294  CONCLUSION. 

naturally  feels  to  know  the  probable  motives  of  one  who 
addresses  him  on  any  important  topic  of  practical  interest. 
Disconnected,  in  a  great  degree,  from  the  common  pur- 
suits of  the  world,  and  independent  of  any  party  or  of 
any  man's  favor,  there  is,  perhaps,  scarcely  an  individual 
to  whom  it  can  be  a  matter  of  less  private  concern,  what 
opinions  others  may  hold.     No  one  will  suppose,  that  if 
literary  fame  were  my  object,  I  should  have  sought  it 
by  such  a  discussion  as  this  in  which  I  have  engaged. 
Even  among  those  who  have  no  prejudices  in  favor  of 
the  errors  opposed,  much  indifference  and  much  disgust 
to  the  subject  must  be  overcome,  before  I  can  expect 
this   work   to  find  any  considerable  number  of  readers. 
I  commenced  it  not  long  after  one  of  the  severest  de- 
privations of  my  life,   the   loss   of  a  most   valued  and 
most  justly  valued  friend,  and  have  continued  it  with 
sickness  and  death  around  me.     I  have  been  writing,  as  it 
were,  on  the  tombstones  of  those  who  were  most  dear  to 
me,  with  feelings  of  the  character,  purposes,  and  duties 
of  life,  which  my  own  death-bed  will  not  strengthen. 
I  may,  then,  claim  at  least  that  share  of  unsuspicious 
attention  to  which  every  one  is  entitled,  who  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  any  other  motive  in  maintaining  his 
opinions,  than  a  very  serious,  earnest,  and  enduring  con- 
viction of  their  truth  and  importance. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


[See  page  213.] 

ON  THE  EXPECTATIONS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  CONCERNING  THE 
VISIBLE  RETURN  OF  THEIR  MASTER  TO  EARTH. 

The  language  of  our  Saviour  respecting  his  future 
coming  was,  I  believe,  more  or  less  misunderstood  by 
some  or  all  of  the  Apostles,  during  a  part  or  the  whole 
of  their  ministry.  They  looked  forward,  with  more  or 
less  confidence,  to  a  personal  and  visible  return  of  Christ 
to  earth  at  no  distant  period.  The  first  coming  of  the 
Messiah  had  been  so  wholly  unlike  what  their  country- 
men had  universally  anticipated,  that  when  he  spoke  of 
a  future  coming,  while  the  existing  generation  was  still 
living,  they  transferred  to  this  some  of  the  expectations 
which  had  been  long  entertained  respecting  his  appear- 
ance and  kingdom.  It  is  necessary  to  attend  to  this  fact 
in  connexion  with  the  explanation  which  has  been  given 
of  the  language  of  Christ.  The  evidence  of  it  may 
appear  from  what  follows. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  John's  Gospel  we  have  the 
following  narrative  :  *  "  Then  Peter  turning  about  sees 

*  John  xxi.  20  —  23. 


298 


APPENDIX. 


the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  following,  the  same  who 
reclined  upon  his  breast  at  the  supper,  and  asked,  Master, 
who  is  thy  betrayer  ?  Peter,  seeing  this  disciple,  says 
to  Jesus,  Master,  what  shall  happen  to  him  ?  Jesus 
says  to  him,  If  I  will  that  he  remain  till  I  come,  what  does 
it  concern  thee  ?  Follow  thou  me.  Then  the  saying 
was  spread  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple  should 
not  die.  But  Jesus  did  not  say  to  him,  that  he  should 
not  die ;  but,  If  I  will  that  he  remain  till  I  come,  what 
does  it  concern  thee  ?  " 

It  was  a  belief  among  the  Jews,  as  we  have  good 
reason  to  suppose,  that  the  lives  of  those  saints  who 
might  be  on  earth  when  the  Messiah  should  appear, 
would  be  prolonged  through  his  reign  to  the  termination 
of  all  things.  *  This  expectation,  it  would  seem  from 
the  passage  quoted,  was  now  entertained  by  the  brethren 
concerning  the  future  coming  of  Christ. 

One  of  the  most  cherished  hopes  of  the  Jews  was, 
that  the  Messiah  would  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel; 
that  he  would  raise  the  nation  to  even  far  greater  power 
and  splendor  than  they  believed  it  to  have  enjoyed 
during  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon.  Similar  expec- 
tations were  entertained  by  the  disciples  of  Christ  till 
after  his  death.  The  two  who  journeyed  with  him  to  Em- 
maus  after  his  resurrection  said  ;  "  We  had  hoped,  that  he 
was  to  be  the  redeemer  of  Israel."  f  The  last  question 
which  his  Apostles  proposed  to  him  was ;  "  Lord,  wilt 
thou  now  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  "  The  false 
expectation  implied  in  these  words,  it  is  to  be  observed, 

*  See  Pocock's  Notae  Miscellaneae  in  Maimon.  Port.  Mosis.  Works, 
I.  177,  178. 

t  Luke  xxiv.  21. 


APPENDIX.  299 

was  not  corrected  by  our  Saviour.  He  only  answered, 
"  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  and  the  seasons 
which  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  Father  alone."  *  The 
question  of  the  Apostles  shows,  that  they  had  at  the  time 
no  correct  understanding  of  his  prophecy  concerning  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation  ;  and  that  their  minds 
still  dwelt  on  the  ancient  hopes  of  their  countrymen. 

The  later  Jews  have  supposed,  that  at  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  the  saints  who  are  dead  will  be  raised  from 
their  graves  to  partake  the  glories  of  his  kingdom,  f  It 
is  probable  that  this  is  a  traditionary  belief,  and  that  a 
similar  supposition  was  entertained  by  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Christ.  If  so,  it  may  have  served  in  part  as  a 
foundation  for  the  following  striking  and  eloquent  passage 
in  which  St.  Paul  expresses  to  the  Thessalonians  his 
expectation  of  the  near  return  of  our  Saviour  to  earth.  J 

"  I  would  have  you  understand,  brethren,  concerning 
those  who  have  fallen  asleep,  that  ye  may  not  sorrow 
like  other  men  who  have  no  hope.  For  as  we  believe 
that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  so  also  will  God,  through 
Jesus,  bring  again  with  him  those  who  have  fallen  asleep. 
For  this  we  say  to  you,  brethren,  as  teachers  of  God, 
that  we  who  are  living,  we  who  are  left  till  the  coming 
of  the  Lord,<§>  shall  not  anticipate  those  who  have  fallen 

*  Acts,  i.  6,  7. 

t  See  Pocock's  dissertation,  "  In  quo  variae  Judaeorum  de  resurrec- 
tione  mortuorum  sentential  expenduntur,"  one  of  his  Notae  Miscel- 
lanea? upon  the  Porta  Mosis.  Works  I.  159,  seqq. 

t  1  Thess.  iv.  13-18. 

§  It  is  thus  that  the  words,  kfuus  J  &rts,  ol  vtpXtnrlptw  us  rh 
vnpovfflav  rod  xuflou,  should  be  rendered.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  those 
who  are  alive,  those  who  are  left  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  in  con- 
tradistinction to  those  who  have  fallen  asleep. 


300  APPENDIX. 

asleep.  For  the  Lord  himself  will  descend  from  Heaven, 
with  a  summons  given  by  an  archangel  sounding  the 
trump  of  God ;  and  they  who  have  died  in  Christ  shall 
arise  first.  Then  we  who  are  living,  we  who  are  left, 
shall  be  borne  up  with  them  into  the  clouds  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air ;  and  so  shall  we  be  ever  with  the  Lord. 
So  then  comfort  each  other  with  these  words." 

The  Tliessalonians,  it  is  evident  from  both  of  the 
epistles  addressed  to  them,  were  looking  for  the  second 
coming  of  Christ  as  an  event  not  distant.  This  expec- 
tation they  would  hardly  have  entertained  so  strongly  as 
they  appear  to  have  done,  had  it  not  been  countenanced 
by  St.  Paul,  through  whom  they  had  just  been  converted 
to  Christianity.  Anticipating  that  our  Saviour  was  about 
to  come  in  person  to  establish  his  kingdom  and  reward 
his  followers,  they  feared,  it  seems,  that  their  friends 
who  had  died,  might  not  share  in  the  glories  and  bless- 
ings to  be  then  enjoyed  by  those  Christians  who  might 
be  living.  It  was  the  purpose  of  the  Apostle  to  remove 
this  apprehension. 

But  if  we  rightly  understand  the  passage,  the  concep- 
tions of  the  Apostle  respecting  our  Lord's  future  coming 
were  erroneous.  Undoubtedly  it  appears  that  they  were 
so.  But  to  what  does  the  error  amount  ?  Does  it  affect 
any  important  doctrine  of  religion  ?  What  is  the  essen- 
tial fact  here  expressed,  concerning  the  circumstances  of 
which  St.  Paul  had  fallen  into  a  mistake,  in  consequence 
of  the  previous  opinions  of  his  countrymen  ?  The 
essential  doctrine,  —  all  that  can  properly  be  called  a 
truth  of  religion  is  this,  —  that  whether  the  followers  of 
Christ  live  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time  on  earth,  their 
future  happiness  is  equally  secure.     The  dead  and  the 


APPENDIX.  301 

living  are  equally  the  care  of  God ;  and  the  time  is 
coming  when  they  will  all  meet  together  where  their 
Master  has  gone  before. 

That  St.  Paul  had  in  view  that  figurative  language  in 
which  our  Saviour  was,  as  I  believe,  supposed  to  have 
predicted  his  future  personal  coming,  appears  from  the 
words  immediately  following  those  just  quoted.  The 
Apostle  adopts  the  thoughts  and  expressions  which  the 
Evangelists  represent  Christ  as  having  used. 

"  But  concerning  the  times  and  the  seasons,  brethren, 
there  is  no  need  that  I  should  write  to  you.  For  ye 
yourselves  know  well,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  coming 
as  a  thief  in  the  night.  *  For  when  they  shall  say, 
Peace  and  safety,  then  sudden  destruction  shall  come 
upon  them,  f  as  the  pangs  of  a  woman  with  child ;  and 
they  shall  not  escape.  But  ye,  brethren,  are  not  in 
darkness,  that  that  day  should  come  upon  you  as  a  thief. 
Ye  are  all  children  of  the  light,  and  children  of  the  day ; 
ye  are  not  of  the  night  nor  of  darkness.  Let  us  not 
sleep,  then,  as  others,  but  watch  and  be  sober."  J 

With  their  expectations  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom, 
the  Jews  had  connected  the  belief  of  the  overthrow  and 
destruction  of  his  enemies.  A  similar  belief  we  find 
expressed  by  St.  Paul  in  his  second  epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  written  shortly  after  the  first,  in  which  he 
encourages  them  with  the  hope  that  Christ  was  coming 

*  Comp.  JMatth.  xxiv.  43.  "  But  this  ye  are  aware  of,  that  if  the 
master  of  a  house  knows  in  what  watch  a  thief  is  coming,  he  is 
awake,  and  surfers  not  his  house  to  be  broken  into.  So,  then,  be  ye 
[always]  ready  ;  for  in  an  hour  in  which  ye  do  not  expect  him  the 
Son  of  Man  is  coming." 

f  Comp.  Matth.  xxiv.  37-39.         J  Comp.  Matth.  xxiv.  42-51. 

26 


302  APPENDIX. 

to  deliver  them  from  persecution  by  the  destruction  of 
their  persecutors. 

« \ye  glory  in  you,  telling  the  churches  of  God  of 
your  constancy  and  faithfulness  in  all  your  persecutions, 
and  the  afflictions  that  ye  endure  ;  which  afford  a  pledge 
of  that  just  judgment  of  God,  by  which  you  will  be  de- 
clared worthy  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  which  ye  are 
suffering.     Since  it  will   be  just  for  God  to  make  them 
suffer  in  return  who  are  afflicting  you,  and  to  give  you 
who  are  afflicted  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
be  manifested  from  Heaven,  with  the  angels  of  his  might, 
in  flaming  fire,  punishing  those  who  know  not  God,  and 
those  who  refuse  obedience  to  the  gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  ;  who  shall  suffer  the  penalty  of  everlasting  de- 
struction, inflicted  by  the   glorious  power  of  the  Lord 
himself,  when  he  shall  come  in  that  day  to  be  glorified 
in  his  saints,  and  honored  in  all  believers."  * 

But  the  Thessalonians,  it  appears,  had  been  strongly 
excited  by  the  expectation  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 
They  were  regarding  it  as  an  event  close  at  hand.  St. 
Paul,  in  consequence,  though  he  himself  anticipated  it 
as  not  very  distant,  reminds  them,  in  order  to  allay  the 
feverish  state  of  feeling  in  which  they  seem  to  have 
been,  that  he  had  in  a  previous  conversation  with  them 
pointed  out  a  certain  event  by  which  it  was  to  be  pre- 
ceded, and  which  had  not  yet  taken  place.  This  event, 
I  suppose  to  have  been  the  rebellion  of  the  Jews  against 
the  Romans ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  our  present 
purpose  to  enter  into  a  full  explanation  of  the  obscure 
passage  to  which  I  refer,  f 

We  have  seen  that  St.  Paul,  at  the  time  when  he 

*  2  Thess.  i.  4  -  10.  t  2  Thess.  Ch.  ii. 


APPENDIX.  303 

wrote  his  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  was  looking 
forward  to  a  resurrection  of  those  Christians  who  had  died, 
which  should  take  place  at  the  coming  of  Christ ;  and 
that  he  regarded  himself  and  those  whom  he  addressed, 
as  individuals  who  might  be  living  at  the  time  of  that 
event.  The  same  anticipations  appear  in  his  first  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.     He  says : 

"  Through  Christ  all  will  be  made  alive.  But  each 
in  his  proper  order;  Christ  the  first  fruits ;  next  they  who 
are  Christ's  at  his  coming. 

-¥-  -Ifc  -M-  •«■  «5t- 

*vp  *7r  "TV  -Tr  *Jv- 

"Brethren,  I  tell  you  a  new  truth.  We  shall  not  all 
sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed  ;  in  a  moment,  in  the 
glance  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  ;  —  for  the  trump 
will  sound,  and  the  dead  will  be  raised  incorruptible, 
and  we  shall  be  changed."  * 

St.  Paul  elsewhere  in  his  epistles  refers,  I  think,  to 
the  expected  personal  appearance  of  his  Master;  as, 
when  addressing  the  Corinthians,  some  of  whom  were 
disposed  to  an  unfriendly  judgment  concerning  him,  he 
says ;  f  "  Judge  nothing  before  the  time,  till  the  Lord 
come,  who  will  bring  to  light  what  is  hidden  in  dark- 
ness, and  make  manifest  the  purposes  of  men's  hearts ; 
and  then  every  one's  praise  will  be  from  God." 

Thus  also  he  exhorts  the  Romans  to  obey  the  precepts 
he  had  given  them,  "  understanding  the  time ;  for  the 
hour,"  lie  says,  "has  come  for  us  to  awake  from  sleep; 
for  now  is  our  deliverance  nearer  than  when  we  believed. 
The  night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand."  J 

To  the  Philippians  (iv.  5.)  he  says,  "  The  Lord  is  at 
hand,"  apparently  in  the  same  sense  in  which  in  the 

*  Ch.  xv.  23,  24,  51,  52.  t  1  Cor.  iv.  5.        {  Rom.  xiii.  11,  12. 


304  APPENDIX. 

Epistle  of  James  (v.  8.)  it  is  said,  "  The  coming  of  the 
Lord  is  at  hand." 

He  tells  the  Corinthians ; #  "  I  ever  thank  my  God 
for  you,  on  account  of  the  favor  of  God  bestowed 
upon  you  through  Christ  Jesus;  for  ye  have  been 
enriched  by  him  with  all  instruction  and  all  knowledge, 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  having  been  firmly  established 
among  you,  so  that  ye  are  poor  in  no  blessing,  whilst 
waiting  for  the  manifestation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
and  God  also  will  preserve  you  steadfast  to  the  end,  so 
that  ye  may  be  without  blame  in  the  day  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 

To  the  Philippians  (i.  6.)  he  expresses  his  confidence, 
that  "  he,  among  them,  who  has  begun  a  good  work,  will 
go  on  to  perfect  it  till  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ." 

We  will  now  take  notice  of  a  single  passage  in  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  John.  It  has  been  expected  by  the 
later  Jews  that  the  coming  of  the  Antichrist,  or  of  the 
Anti-Messiah,  would  precede  that  of  the  Messiah.  The 
same  notion  seems  to  have  prevailed  among  the  Jews  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  and  to  be  referred  to  by  St.  John  in 
the  following  passage  :  f 

"  Children  !  it  is  the  last  hour ;  and  as  ye  have  heard 
that  the  Antichrist  is  coming,  so  there  are  now  many 
antichrists,  whence  we  know  that  it  is  the  last  hour." 

There  is  so  little  reason  to  suppose,  that  the  second 
epistle  ascribed  to  St.  Peter  was  written  by  him,  that  it 
is  not  to  be  quoted  as  evidence  of  his  opinions.  But  in 
his  First  Epistle  (as  it  is  called),  that  is,  probably,  in  the 
only  writing  of  his  which  remains,  he  says ;  J     "  The 

*  1  Cor  i.  4-8.  t  1  John,  ii.  18. 

t  Ch.  iv.  7. 


APPENDIX.  305 

end  of  all  things  draws  near.     Be  ye  sober,  therefore, 
and  watch  and  pray." 

"  Encourage  one  another,"  says  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,*  "  and  so  much  the  more,  be- 
cause ye  see  the  day  is  approaching." 

I  do  not  refer  to  the  Apocalypse  as  the  work  of  St. 
John,  for  I  do  not  believe  it  to  be  so.  But,  as  it  was 
written  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first  or  the  early 
part  of  the  second  century,  it  affords  evidence  of  the 
opinions  of  those  who  were  disciples  of  the  Apostles. 
I  regard  it  as  the  production  of  some  early  Jewish  Chris- 
tian, whose  imagination  was  highly  excited  by  the  ex- 
pected coming  of  Christ.  It  does  not,  I  think,  appear 
that  he  himself  intended  to  assume  the  character  of  the 
Apostle,  John,  or  that  there  is  ground  for  charging  him 
with  any  fraudulent  design.  His  work,  notwithstanding 
the  imperfection  of  its  language,  is  in  a  high  strain  of 
poetry.  The  mind  of  the  writer  was  borne  away  by  his 
subject.  He  intended,  as  I  conceive,  that  his  visions 
should  be  understood  as  imaginary  only,  like  those  of 
another  work  of  about  the  same  age,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hennas,  or,  to  take  a  more  familiar  example,  like  those 
of  Bunyan.  The  conviction  was  strong  upon  him,  that 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  was  near  at  hand  ;  and  the 
object  of  his  work,  which  in  modern  times  has  been  so 
ill  understood,  was,  I  believe,  to  describe  the  events 
with  which,  according  to  the  belief  of  his  age,  or  his  own 
particular  belief,  it  was  to  be  preceded,  accompanied, 
and  followed.  In  the  very  commencement  of  his  work, 
he  professes  that  it  relates  to  events  soon  to  occur ;  ex- 
horting his  readers  to  attend  to  what  is  written,  "  because 

*  Ch.  x.  25. 

26# 


306  APPENDIX. 

the  time  is  near."  His  words  are  thus  rendered  in  the 
Common  Version : 

"  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave 
unto  him,  to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which  must 
shortly  come  to  pass ;  and  he  sent  and  signified  it  by  his 

angel  to  his  servant  John Blessed  is  he  that 

readeth,  and  they  that  hear,  the  words  of  this  prophecy, 
and  keep  those  things  which  are  written  therein  ;  for  the 
time  is  at  hand.1'' 

The  words,  as  thus  translated,  show,  I  think,  that 
those  expositions  of  the  book  are  erroneous,  which  sup- 
pose it  to  contain  a  prophecy  of  events  concerning  the 
Christian  church,  extending  to  our  own  time  and  beyond, 
some  of  the  most  important  not  having  yet  taken  place. 
Whatever  the  writer  anticipated  was,  as  he  believed, 
shortly  to  come  to  pass.  But  I  suppose  that  the  words 
contain  a  much  clearer  indication  of  his  subject,  and  that 
the  first  verse  should  be  thus  rendered : 

"  The  Manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  has 
granted  him  to  show  forth  to  his  servants,  what  must 
shortly  come  to  pass,  which  he  has  signified,  sending  by 
his  angel  to  his  servant  John." 

The  near  coming  of  the  Lord  is  several  times  referred 
to  in  the  work  in  express  terms.  In  the  seventh  verse 
of  the  first  chapter,  the  language  which  our  Saviour 
used,  when  he  figuratively  spoke  of  his  coming  to  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation,  is  quoted  by  the  writer; 
"  Behold  he  is  coming  in  clouds,  and  every  eye  shall 
see  him,  and  they  who  pierced  him  ;  and  all  the  tribes  of 
the  land  shall  lament."  There  are  elsewhere  similar 
references  to  the  words  of  Christ.  And  the  book  con- 
cludes, as  it  begun,  with  a  declaration,  that  the  events 


APPENDIX.  307 

anticipated  in  it  were  near  at  hand  ;  and  an  explicit  indi- 
cation that  the  main  event  expected  was  the  coming  of 
Christ.  "  And  the  angel  says  to  me,  Seal  not  up  the 
words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book ;    for  the  time  is 

near." "  Behold  I  am  coming  quickly  to  bring 

retribution  with  me,  to  give  to  every  man  according  to 

his  works."    "  He   who  testifies    these   things 

says,  Surely  I  am  coming  quickly  :  Amen  !  Come,  Lord 
Jesus." 

The  principal  source  of  illustration  for  this  book  is  to 
be  found  in  the  language  and  conceptions  of  the  later 
Jews,  especially  their  conceptions  of  events  connected 
with  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  from  the  neglect 
of  this  means  of  illustration,  and  from  the  erroneous 
notions  respecting  the  character  of  the  work  as,  properly 
speaking,  prophetical,  that  the  imaginations  of  most 
modern  expositors  have  been  so  bewildered  in  its  study. 
The  coincidence  between  many  of  the  conceptions  of 
the  later  JewTs  and  those  expressed  by  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse,  leaves  little  doubt  that  the  former  are  tradi- 
tionary, and  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ. 

Though  the  second  epistle  ascribed  to  Peter  cannot 
be  quoted  in  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  that  Apostle,  it 
affords  proof  of  a  state  of  opinion  and  feeling  existing 
among  Christians  at  some  period  during  the  first  two 
centuries.  The  writer  says  (hi.  3-13.);  "Be  aware 
of  this,  that  in  the  last  days  scoffers  will  arise,  following 
their  own  lusts,  and  saying,  Where  is  his  promised 
coming?  For  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things 
continue  as  they  were  since  the  beginning  of  the  crea- 
tion. But  they  wilfully  forget  that  of  old  by  the  word 
of  God  there  were  heavens,  and  an  earth  rising  out  of 


303  APPENDIX. 

the  water,  and  surrounded  by  water,  which  things  being 
so,  the  world  then  existing  was  destroyed,  being  inun- 
dated by  water ;  but  the  present  heavens  and  the  present 
earth  are   by  his  word  reserved  for  fire,  being  kept  for  a 
day  when  the  impious  will  be  judged  and  destroyed. 
Forget  not  this  one  thing,  beloved,  that  a  day  with  the 
Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  a 
day.     The  Lord  is  not  tardy  in  performing  his  promise, 
(as  some  think  him  tardy),  but  is  patient  toward  us,  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  attain 
reformation.     But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a 
thief,  in  which  the  heavens  will  pass  away  with  a  roaring 
sound,  and  the  elements  will  melt  with  fervent  heat,  and 
the  earth  and  all  its  works  will  be  burnt  up.     Seeing, 
then,  that  all  present  things  are  to  be  dissolved,  what 
ought  ye  to  be  in  all  holy  conduct  and  pious  dispositions, 
expecting  and  earnestly  desiring  the  coming  of  the  day 
of  God,  in  which  the  heavens  will  be  dissolved  by  fire, 
and  the  elements  melt  with  fervent  heat.     But  we,  ac- 
cording to  his  promise,  expect  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,  in  which  righteousness  will  dwell." 

Though  the  author  does  not  in  this  passage  explicitly 
speak  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  —  for  by  the  title  :  Lord  ' 
God  is  here  intended,  —  yet  I  suppose  there  is  no  con- 
troversy that  he  connected  in  his  imagination  the  con- 
summation of  all  present  things  which  he  describes,  with 
that  event.  It  appears,  then,  from  what  he  says,  that 
there  had  been  so  much  expectation  among  Christians  of 
the  speedy  return  of  Christ,  as  to  afford  occasion  to  the 
ridicule  of  scoffers.  The  writer,  it  seems,  conceived  that 
it  would  be  attended  with  the  renovation  of  all  things  by 
fire ;  a  conception  which  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 


APPENDIX.  309 

that  of  the  consummation  of  all  things  by  fire  at  the 
termination  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  The  former  seems 
to  have  been  peculiar,  and  borrowed,  not  from  the  notions 
of  the  Jews  concerning  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  but 
from  Gentile  philosophy,  particularly  the  Stoic.  There 
is  nothing  answering  to  it  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, nor,  I  think,  in  the  Jewish  traditions.  It  is  quite 
different  from  the  notions  entertained  by  the  earliest 
Christian  Fathers,  which  correspond  to  those  held  by  the 
Jews,  and  expressed  in  the  Apocalypse ;  though  they 
comprised  much  which  had  nowhere  been  taught  by  any 
Apostle.  The  earlier  Fathers  believed,  to  quote  the 
description  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  appeals  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse as  his  authority,  that  Jerusalem  was  to  be  rebuilt, 
adorned,  and  enlarged  ;  that  there  was  to  be  a  resurrec- 
tion, in  which  the  followers  of  Christ  who  were  dead, 
together  with  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  and  other  pious 
Jews,  were  to  return  to  life  ;  that  these,  with  the  body  of 
Christians,  were  to  inhabit  that  city  with  Christ,  rejoic- 
ing, for  a  thousand  years,  at  the  end  of  which  would 
follow  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment  of  all. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Millenium,  of  the  visible  reign 
of  Christ  in  person  upon  earth ;  a  doctrine  which  the 
earlier  Christians  would  be  disposed  to  receive  the  more 
eagerly  in  consequence  of  the  oppression,  persecution, 
and  deprivation  they  were  suffering.  It  was,  however, 
rejected  and  opposed  by  Origen.  When  Christianity 
became  the  religion  of  the  state,  and  worldly  prosperity 
shone  on  its  professors,  the  doctrine  gradually  faded  out 
of  notice  ;  but  it  has  existed  to  our  own  age,  transmitted 
or  revived,  being  held  at  different  periods  by  some  one 
or  other  more  enthusiastic  sect,  in  connexion  with  the  be- 
lief, that  the  expected  kingdom  of  Christ  is  at  hand. 


310 


APPENDIX. 


We  will  now  confine  our  attention  to  the  opinions  of 
the  Apostles,  which  are  to  be  carefully  distinguished 
from  all  the  additions  made  to  them  by  others.  I  have 
quoted  the  writings  of  different  Apostles.  Probably 
there  were  differences  of  opinion  among  them  concern- 
ing the  circumstances  which  would  attend  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  ;  but  they  all  appear  to  have  expected  his  per- 
sonal and  visible  return  to  earth  as  an  event  not  distant ; 
and  to  have  believed  that  he  would  come  to  exercise 
judgment,  to  reward  his  faithful  followers,  to  punish  the 
disobedient,  and  to  destroy  his  foes.  St.  Paul,  likewise, 
expected  that  "  the  dead  who  were  Christ's  "  would  be 
raised  at  his  coming.  He  further  tells  the  Thessalonians, 
that  the  followers  of  Christ  then  living  would  be  borne 
up  in  the  air  to  meet  the  Lord  and  continue  ever  with 
him;  —  words  which  imply,  that  he  believed  that  the 
end  of  all  present  things  was  to  be  connected  with  the 
coming  of  Christ.  To  the  Corinthians,  after  speaking 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  followers  of  Christ  at  his 
coming,  he  says ;  "  Then  will  be  the  end,  when  he  will 
deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ;  after 
destroying  all  dominion  and  all  authority  and  power. 
For  he  must  reign  till  He  has  put  all  his  enemies  under 
his  feet.     The  last  enemy,  Death,  shall  be  destroyed. 

And  when  all  things  are  put  under  him,  then 

will  the  Son  himself  be  subject  to  him,  who  put  all 
things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  *  We 
are  likewise  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  St.  Paul  con- 
nected the  end  of  the  world  with  the  coming  of  Christ, 
by  the  strong  language  that  he  uses  concerning  the 
general  judgment  of  men,  which  was  then  to  take  place. 

*1  Cor.  xv.  24-28, 


APPENDIX.  311 

Thus  he  says  to  Timothy  ;  "I  charge  thee  before  God, 
and  before  Jesus  Christ,  who  will  judge  the  living  and 
the  dead  when  he  shall  appear  in  his  kingdom ; "  * 
and  the  conception,  that  we  must  "  all  appear  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ  to  receive  according  to  what  we 
have  done  in  the  body,  either  good  or  evil,"  is  one 
which  he  repeatedly  expresses,  f  That  he  looked  for 
the  end  of  the  world  as  following  the  coming  of  Christ, 
may  be  inferred  also  from  his  describing  those  who 
should  then  rise,  as  passing  from  mortality  to  immortality, 
and  as  clothed  with  spiritual  bodies.  "  Flesh  and  blood," 
he  says,  "cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  J 
St.  Peter  and  St.  John  likewise  speak  of  "  its  being  the 
last  time  "  ;  and  of  "  the  end  of  all  things  being  at  hand." 
It  is  to  be  particularly  observed,  that  there  is  no  intima- 
tion given  by  any  Apostle  of  a  millennial  reign  of  Christ ; 
a  circumstance  which,  among  many  others,  serves  to 
show,  that  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
clearly  taught,  was  not  the  work  of  St.  John. 

Such,  then,  appear  to  have  been  the  opinions  of  the 
Apostles  respecting  the  second  coming  of  their  Master. 
I  have  been  led  to  speak  of  this  subject,  so  important  in 
many  of  its  relations,  from  its  special  bearing  upon  the 
explanations  which  I  have  given  of  the  language  of  our 
Saviour.  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  his  language 
concerning  his  future  coming,  the  establishment  of  his 
kingdom  on  earth,  and  his  passing  judgment  upon  all 
men,  presents  no  difficulty  when  compared  with  subse- 
quent events  ;  that  his  expressions  are  figurative,  and 
that  their  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  analogous  meta- 

*  2  Timothy,  iv.  1.  t  Rom.  xiv.  10. ;  2  Cor.  v.  10. 

X  1  Cor.  xv.  50. 


312  APPENDIX. 

phors,  the  meaning  of  which  is  obvious  ;  and  that  how- 
ever bold  some  of  them  may  appear,  they  do  not  tran- 
scend the  genius  of  the  Oriental  style.  Bat  we  find,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  his  Apostles,  through  causes  which 
I  have  endeavoured  partly  to  explain,  instead  of  a  figu- 
rative coming,  expected  a  literal  return  of  their  master 
to  earth,  before  the  generation  then  living  should  pass 
away ;  that,  instead  of  a  figurative  judgment,  they  be- 
lieved that  on  his  return  he  would  judge  all  men  in  per- 
son ;  and  that,  in  connexion  with  these  events,  they 
anticipated  the  end  of  all  things.  These  expectations 
were  erroneous ;  and  before  the  explanation  which  has 
been  given  of  the  words  of  Christ  can  be  fully,  admitted, 
this  error  must  be  understood.  We  must  not  read  over 
the  passages  in  which  it  is  expressed  with  a  confused 
misapprehension  of  their  sense,  as  if  they  related  to 
events  still  future,  and  were  at  the  same  time  coincident 
in  meaning  with  the  language  of  Christ. 

Nothing  more  need  be  said  to  illustrate  the  difference 
which  I  suppose  to  exist  between  his  meaning  and  the 
conceptions  of  the  Apostles,  respecting  his  future  coming. 
But  there  are  questions  and  considerations  suggested  by 
the  facts  brought  forward,  which,  though  not  immediately 
connected  with  the  subject  of  this  work,  are  too  impor- 
tant to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  Why,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  not  our  Saviour  prevent  his  Apostles  from 
falling  into  the  error  we  have  remarked  ?  The  answer 
to  this  question  will  open  to  us  views  of  much  impor- 
tance to  be  attended  to  in  the  study  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 


APPENDIX.  313 

On  many  subjects  our  Saviour  refrained  from  entering 
into  a  full  explanation,  and  correcting  the  errors  of  his 
hearers.     They  were   errors   not   intimately   connected 
with  the  essential  truths  of  religion.     The   course    of 
events,  the  advance  of  human  reason,  and  the  progress 
of  knowledge,  would  afford  sufficient  correctives  ;   and 
he  was  not  sent  to  deliver  men  from  all  false  opinions, 
and  to  furnish  a  digest  of  truth  upon  every  subject.     An 
error  not  important  may  be  so  interwoven  with  an  essen- 
tial truth,  that  it  can  be  separated  only  by  the  hazardous 
experiment  of  unravelling  the  whole   web.     A  misap- 
prehension  of  facts  may  be    strongly   associated    with 
feelings  practically  true.     Their  roots  may  be  so  twisted 
round  it,  that  there  is  danger  of  eradicating  them  in  the 
attempt  to  remove  it.     Nor  does  the  communication  of 
truth  depend  upon  the  instructer  alone.     No  instructer 
can  give  a  child  the  knowledge  of  a  man.     He  to  whom 
God  had  opened  the  treasure-house  of  wisdom,  could 
not  make  all  his  most  willing  hearers  as  wise  as  himself. 
Putting  out  of  view  all  miraculous  influence  upon  the 
mind,  men  can  be  advanced  in  intellectual  improvement 
only  in  proportion   to   the   progress    which    they   have 
already   made.     A   truth,    however   clearly    presented, 
must  be  in  some  accordance  with  the  previous  habits  of 
thinking  of  him  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  in  order  to  be 
clearly  apprehended ;  and  a  truth  ill  apprehended,  de- 
tached from  the  relations  in  which  it  ought  to  be  viewed, 
may  be  more  mischievous  than  the  error  which   it  is 
intended  to  supplant.     Men  must  be  taught,   as    our 
Saviour  taught  them,  as  "  they  are  able  to  bear  it."     To 
have  enabled  his  hearers  fully  to  comprehend  all  facts 
and  truths  connected  with  Christianity,  and  to  have  freed 
27 


314  APPENDIX. 

their  minds  from  all  false  conceptions  concerning   the 
Messiah  and  his  kingdom,  and  every  topic  which  has,  or 
may  be  supposed  to  have,  a  bearing  upon  religion,  could 
have  been  effected  only  by  a  miracle  which  would  almost 
have  changed  their  identity.     Supposing  that  in  the  par- 
ticular case  of  the  Apostles  such  a  miracle  bad  been 
wrought,  still  their  hearers  would  have  been  as  dull  of 
apprehension  as  were  those  whom  Christ  taught.     Had 
the  Apostles  been  placed  in  all  respects  on  an  equality 
with  their  Master ;  had  they  been  guided  throughout  by 
the  same  perfect  judgment,  which  implies  not  merely 
the   highest  intellectual,  but  the  highest  moral  excel- 
lence ;  had  they  each  been  qualified  to  supply  his  place, 
and  entitled  to  every  name  of  honor  which  belongs  to 
him,  their  disciples  would  have   held  the  same   place 
which  they  themselves  now  do  as  disciples  of  Christ. 
They  must  have  taught  their  followers  as  their  Master 
had  taught  them ;  and  whenever  this  miraculous  regen- 
eration of  intellect  ceased,  and  men's  minds  were  left  to 
their  natural  action,  and  the  current  of  their  opinions 
was  suffered    to  pursue  its  ordinary  course,    whenever 
infallibility  was  no  longer  secured  by  the  power  of  God, 
errors  of  some  kind  would  necessarily  mingle  with  men's 
religious  faith.     As  regards  the  Apostles,  we  believe 
that  their  minds  were  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  by  direct  miraculous  communications  from  him,  in 
regard  to  the  essential  truths  of  Christianity.     But  we 
have  no  warrant  to  believe,  nor  is  there  any  probable 
argument  to  show,  that  this  divine  illumination  was  fur- 
ther extended. 

Our  Saviour  came  to  teach  the  essential  truths  of  reli- 
gion.    Even  these  truths  were  but  imperfectly  appre- 


APPENDIX. 


315 


hended  by  most  of  those  who  heard  him,  and,  I  may 
add,  have  been  but  imperfectly  apprehended  by  most  of 
those  who,  from  his  time  to  our  own,  have  professed 
themselves  to  be  his  disciples.     When  we  find,  that  on 
the  last  night  of  his  ministry  one  of  his  Apostles  said  to 
him ;  "  Master,  show  us  the  Father,  and  we  shall  be 
satisfied,"  *  it  may  be  perceived,  that  there  were  diffi- 
culties enough  to  be  overcome  in  communicating  to  them 
a  full  apprehension  of  those  elementary  truths.     Their 
attention  was  not  to  be  withdrawn  from  them  by  discus- 
sions,  doubts,   questions,   and    explanations,    respecting 
subjects  of  comparatively  little  importance,  concerning 
which  they  might  have  adopted  the  errors  of  their  age. 
When,  referring  to  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of 
souls,  a  doctrine,  at  that  time,  generally  connected  with 
the  belief  of  their  immortality,  they  asked ;  "  Master, 
who  sinned,  this  man  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born 
blind  ? "  f  our  Saviour  in  his  answer  did  not  explain  to 
them  the  mistake  implied  in  those  words.     When,  under 
the  belief  common  to  their  countrymen,  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  this   life  were   punishments  from   God,  certain 
individuals  came  to  tell  him  of  the  "  Galileans  whose 
blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices,"  J  there 
was  nothing  in  his  reply  to  correct  their  false  concep- 
tions.    The  relative   importance  of  different   doctrines, 
the  wide  separation  which  divides  what  is  essential  in 
true  religion   from  all  the   accessory   notions  that  men 
have  made  a  part  of  their  religion,  is  very  little  under- 
stood at  the  present  day,  and  was  not  better  understood 
by  the  Jews  eighteen  centuries  ago.      In  most  minds, 
those  opinions  which  they  believe  or  fancy  to  have  any 

*  John  xiv.  8.  t  John  ix.  2.  %  Luke  xiii.  1. 


316  APPENDIX. 

thing  of  a  religious  character,  are  disposed  without  re- 
gard to  perspective.     They  all  stand  forward  equal  in 
magnitude.     It  is  one  of  the  most  striking  characteristics 
of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  that  the  distinction  between 
the  essential  truths  of  religion,  and  all  other  doctrines 
true  or  false,  was  never  confounded  by  him.      He  fixed 
the  attention  of  his  hearers  only  upon  what  it  most  con- 
cerned them  to   know  as  religious   beings,  that   is,   as 
creatures  of  God  and  heirs  of  immortality.     In  order  to 
effect  this  purpose,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  confine 
his  teaching  to  the  essential  truths  of  religion.     If  he 
had  done  otherwise,  if  he  had  labored  to  correct  the 
errors  of  his  hearers  upon  subjects  of  minor  importance, 
and  to  place  the  truth  distinctly  before  them  in  all  those 
new  relations  which  it  might  present,  his  hearers  would 
unavoidably  have  confounded  the  doctrines  thus  taught 
them  upon  divine  authority,  with  those  essential  princi- 
ples which  alone  it  was  the  purpose  of  God  to  announce* 
Their  imaginations  and  feelings  might  perhaps  have  been 
more  occupied  about  what  it  was  of  little  consequence 
for  them  to  know,  than  about  truths  which  it  was  of  the 
highest  concern  that  they  should  understand  themselves, 
and  be  qualified  to  teach  to  others. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  under  which  the  subject 
is  to  be  viewed.  We  must  consider,  not  merely  the  dis- 
ciples, but  the  enemies  of  Christ ;  we  must  regard  the 
character  of  the  ignorant,  prejudiced,  unstable  multi- 
tudes whom  he  addressed,  and  whom  his  Apostles  were 
to  address  ;  and  we  must  recollect,  that  whatever  he 
taught  to  his  Apostles  was  in  effect  taught  to  all ;  that  it 
was  their  proper  office  to  publish  his  whole  doctrine. 
Now  in  communicating  to  men  the  essential  truths  of 


APPENDIX.  317 

religion,  and  in  confining  his  attention  to  these  alone,  he 
had  to  encounter  prejudices  and  passions  the  most  ob- 
stinate and  violent.     Superstition,  fanaticism,  and  hypoc- 
risy, all  that  is  in  most  direct  opposition  to  the  love  of 
God  and  man,  constituted  the  religion  of  a  great  part 
of  the  Jews.     It  was  vital  to  the  selfish  purposes  and  to 
the    authority  of  those    who  were   leaders   among  the 
people,  that  the  errors  which   prevailed  should   retain 
their  power  over  men's  minds.     The  bigotry  of  false 
religion  was  at  the  same  time  inflamed  by  national  pride. 
This  opposition  Christ  had  to  encounter,  and  hence  he 
was  assailed  throughout  his  ministry  with  continual  cavil, 
reproach,  and  persecution ;  and  he  saw  from  its  com- 
mencement, that  he  should  soon  become   their  victim. 
The  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed,  required  the 
utmost    circumspection,   judgment,    and    self-command. 
No  new  prejudice  was  to  be  needlessly  excited.     No 
unnecessary    occasion    of  cavil    was    to   be    presented. 
No  opportunity  for  perverting  or  contradicting  his  words 
was    to  be  given,    that  could    be  avoided    consistently 
with  the  purpose  of  his  mission.     It  was  not  for  him  to 
waste  the  numbered  days  of  his  ministry,  in   which  so 
much  was  to  be  accomplished,   to  perplex  his  hearers, 
and  to  exasperate  his  foes,  by  entering  into  controversy 
or  explanations  respecting  topics  of  minor  concern.     The 
hold  which  a  prejudice  has  upon  the  mind  is  often  out 
of  all   proportion   to   any   show  of  proof  that  may   be 
brought  in   its  support.     Questions,   the    discussion   of 
which  we  should  now  regard  only  as  an  object  of  ridi- 
cule, have  in  other  ages  been  the  occasion  of  rancorous 
contention.     In  the  fourteenth  century,  a  dispute  raged 
in  the  Greek  empire  concerning  the  question,  whether 
27* 


318  APPENDIX. 

the  light  which  shone  round  Christ  at  his  transfiguration 
was  created  or  uncreated.  Four  councils  were  assem- 
bled, and  those  who  affirmed  it  to  be  created,  and  held 
the  consequences  which  were  supposed  to  be  connected 
with  this  doctrine,  were  anathematized  as  worse  than  all 
other  heretics.  *  If  a  new  teacher  of  true  religion 
had  been  sent  from  God  to  the  men  of  that  age,  we 
may  easily  comprehend,  that  few  mistakes  would  have 
tended  more  to  render  his  mission  fruitless,  than  for 
him  to  have  entered  into  any  explanation,  or  to  have 
passed  any  judgment,  upon  this  controversy.  In  the 
defence  of  what  we  now  consider  as  gross  errors,  a  blind 
and  deaf  bigotry  has  been  displayed,  the  strength  of 
which  it  is  hard  to  estimate  since  the  delusion  has  passed 
away.  It  is  not  yet  two  centuries,  since  the  denial 
of  the  then  common  belief  of  witchcraft  was  regarded 
as  implying  the  denial  of  the  agency  of  any  spiritual 
being,  of  the  existence  of  the  invisible  world,  and  con- 
sequently as  virtual  atheism,  f  In  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  for  a  long  period  before,  the  doctrine  of  demoniacal 
possession  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  and  many  diseases 

*  See  Petavii  Theologica  Dogmata.  De  Deo  Deique  Proprietatibus, 
Lib.  i.  cap.  xii. 

t  "  For  my  part,"  says  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  "  I  have  ever  believed, 
and  do  now  know,  that  there  are  witches.  They  that  doubt  of  them, 
do  not  only  deny  them,  but  spirits ;  and  are  obliquely  and  of  conse- 
quence a  sort,  not  of  infidels,  but  atheists."  Religio  Medici,  Part  I. 
Glanvill's  "  Sadduceismus  Triumphatus  "  is  a  work  in  defence  of 
the  common  superstition,  by  one  of  the  able  men  of  his  age,  in  which 
he  represents,  as  may  be  supposed  from  the  title,  all  disbelievers  in 
witchcraft  as  destitute  of  religion.  A  great  part  of  Dr.  Henry  More's 
"  Antidote  to  Atheism  "  consists  of  stories  of  supposed  supernatural 
events,  apparitions,  witchcraft,  and  pretended  miraculous  operations 
of  God's  providence. 


APPENDIX.  319 

were  ascribed  to  this  cause.     Our  Saviour  never  taught 
that  this   was  a  false  doctrine.     He   occasionally  used 
language  conformed  to  the  conceptions  of  those  who  be- 
lieved it  to  be  true.     Why  was  he  silent  on  this  subject? 
Why  did  he  leave  some,  if  not  all  his  Apostles,  in  error 
concerning  it,  as  appears  from  the  common  belief  being 
expressed  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  though  not  in  that 
of  St.  John  ?     Let  us  consider,  that  if  he  had  taught  the 
truth,  he  would  immediately  have  been  denounced  by 
his  enemies,  as  an  unbeliever  in  the  invisible  world,  as  a 
Sadducee  teaching  that  "  there  was  neither  angel  nor 
spirit"  ;  —  that  the  error  in  question  was  intimately  con- 
nected with  many  others,  concerning  the  existence  of 
Satan,  the  origin  of  evil,  the  rules  of  God's  government 
of  the  world,  the  mental-  and   physical  constitution  of 
man,  and  the  power  of  magic  and  incantations;  —  that  it 
would  have  been  idle  to  declare  himself  against  one  of 
these   errors   unless  he   had   opposed  them   all ;  —  that 
he  was  surrounded  by  ignorant  and  prejudiced  hearers, 
wholly  unaccustomed  to  exercise  their  minds  upon  any 
general  truth  ;  —  and  that,  bad  it  been  possible  to  instruct 
them  thoroughly  upon  any  one  of  the  subjects  I  have 
mentioned,  he  must,  in  order  to  effect  this,  have  turned 
aside  from  the  great  purpose  of  his  ministry,  and  have 
withdrawn  their  attention  from  it.     It  would  have  been 
the  labor  of  a  long  life  to  enlighten  the  minds  of  any 
considerable  number  of  Jews  upon  topics  such  as  these. 
Let  us  consider  another  case.     The  Jews  had  adopted 
what  is  called  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpreting  their 
sacred  books  ;  and  had  found  many  supposed  predictions 
and  types  of  their  expected  Messiah  in  factitious  senses 
which  they  ascribed  to  particular  passages.     This  mode 


320  APPENDIX. 

of  interpretation  was  adopted  by  some  of  the  Apostles. 
We  find  examples  of  it  as  used  by  them  in  the  Gospels  of 
both  Matthew  and  John,  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
One  is  surprised,  perhaps,  that  this  mistake  was  not  cor- 
rected by  Christ.  Nothing  may  seem  more  simple,  than 
that  he  should  have  indicated,  that  this  whole  system  of 
interpretation,  and  this  method  of  proof,  so  far  as  the 
supposed  prophecies  were  applied  to  himself,  were 
erroneous.  But  would  you  have  had  him  at  the  same 
time  teach  the  whole  art  of  interpretation  ?  If  he 
had  not  done  so,  errors  as  great  might  have  been 
committed  from  some  other  cause.  If  he  had  corrected 
some  wrong  conceptions  only,  and  left  others,  the  latter 
from  that  very  circumstance  would  have  acquired  new 
authority.  But  to  have  taught  the  art  of  interpretation 
only  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  enable  his  hearers 
to  become  skilful  expositors  of  the  Old  Testament;  he 
must  have  settled  the  yet  disputed  questions  concerning 
the  age,  the  authorship,  the  authority,  and  what  has  been 
called  the  inspiration  of  the  different  writings  that  com- 
pose it ;  and  whoever  has  studied  these  subjects  with  an 
unbiassed  and  inquiring  mind,  may,  I  think,  be  satisfied, 
that  the  truth  concerning  them  is;  such,  as  no  Jew  was 
prepared  to  listen  to,  and  few  indeed  would  have  listened 
to  without  astonishment  and  wrath. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  he  had  attempted  only  to 
correct  the  single  error,  which  consisted  in  the  false  ap- 
plication of  many  passages  to  the  Messiah ;  what  would 
have  been  the  consequence  ?  His  enemies  would  un- 
doubtedly have  contended,  that  it  was  idle  to  suppose 
him  to  be  the  Messiah.  He  does  not  even  pretend,  they 
would  have  triumphantly  said,  to  be  the  object  of  the 


APPENDIX.  321 

prophecies,  by  which,  according  to  all  those  learned  in 
the  law,  and  in  our  traditions,  the  Messiah  is  foretold. 
Perhaps  he  would  have  us  believe,  that  no  Messiah  has 
been  promised ;  but  that  he  has  as  good  a  claim  as  any 
other  to  that  title.  Has  he  not  come  from  Beelzebub,  to 
teach  that  the  prophecies  are  false  and  our  hopes  vain, 
that  God  has  ceased  to  care  for  his  people,  and  thus  to 
seduce  us  from  our  faith  and  allegiance  ? 

But  in  connexion  with  this  subject  there  is  another 
fact  to  be  attended  to.  In  teaching  or  enforcing  truth, 
the  language  of  error  may  be  used  in  order  powerfully 
to  affect  the  feelings ;  because  it  has  associations  with  it 
which  no  other  language  will  suggest.  Such  use  of  it 
implies  no  assent  to  the  error  on  which  it  is  founded. 
He  who  employs  the  epithets  '  diabolical,'  or  'fiendish/ 
affords  from  that  circumstance  alone  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose, that  he  believes  in  the  existence  of  devils  or  fiends. 
There  is  much  language  of  the  same  character.  We 
still  borrow  many  expressions  from  imaginary  beings  of 
ideal  beauty  and  grace,  from  fairies  and  sylphs,  beings 
whose  real  existence  was  once  believed.  We  have  no 
reluctance  to  use  words  derived  from  the  false  opinions 
concerning  witchcraft,  possession,  and  magic.  We  use 
those  which  have  been  mentioned,  and  many  terms  of  a 
similar  kind,  because  they  furnish,  or  seem  to  furnish, 
expressions  more  forcible  than  we  could  otherwise  com- 
mand. But  this  fact  has  been  disregarded  in  reasoning 
from  the  language  of  Christ.  Expressions  founded  upon 
the  conceptions  of  the  Jews,  and  used  by  him  because 
no  other  modes  of  speech  would  have  so  powerfully 
affected  their  minds,  have  been  misunderstood  as  intended 


322  APPENDIX. 

to  convey  a  doctrine  taught  by  himself.     This  remark  is 
applicable  to  those  few  passages  in  his   discourses   in 
which  he  speaks,  according  to  the  belief  of  the  Jews,  of 
Satan,  as  if  he  were  a  real  being,  such  as  the  following : 
"  I  saw  Satan  falling  like  lightning  from  heaven  "  :  "  Ye 
are  of  your  father,  the  Devil,  and  the  will  of  your  father 
ye  will  perform  "  :  "  The  enemy  who  sowed  the  tares 
is  the  Devil "  ;  and  particularly  the  figurative  and  para- 
bolic   narrative    in    which  he    represented    himself    as 
having  been  tempted  by  Satan.     I  say  in  which  he  rep- 
resented himself,  for  it  is  evident  that  the  narrative  of  the 
Evangelists  could  have  been  derived  from  Christ  alone. 
Satan  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  the  great  adversary 
of  God  and  man,  the  Tempter,  the  Accuser,  the  source 
of  moral  and  physical  evil.     No  words  could  so  forcibly 
impress  them  with  a  conception  of  the  odiousness  and 
depravity  of  any  act  or  character,  as  by  resembling  it  to 
him,  or  referring  it  to  him  as  its  suggester  or  author. 
They  were  familiar  with  the  imagination  of  such  a  being, 
and  through  this  imagination  their  minds  were  most  pow- 
erfully to  be  affected.     The  abstract  idea  of  moral  evil, 
if,  indeed,  they  could  have  apprehended  it,  would  have 
been  to  them  a  shadowy  phantom,  compared  with  it  as 
hypostatized  and  vivified  in  its  supposed  malignant  au- 
thor.    Under  circumstances  in  which  it  is  impossible  to 
explain  the  whole  truth,  or  in  which  it  is  certain  that  the 
whole  truth  cannot  be  understood  and  felt,  in  addressing 
men  who  are  unaccustomed  to  exercise  their  understand- 
ings, and  who  from  childhood  have  incorporated  false  con- 
ceptions with  right  principles  of  action,  we  may  use  their 
errors  for  their  reformation  ;  we  may  appeal  to  their  feel- 
ings or  their  fears  through  their  mistaken  imaginations ; 


APPENDIX.  323 

we  may  employ  one  wrong  opinion  to  counteract  others 
more  pernicious ;  and  in  reasoning,  exhortation,  or  re- 
proof, we  may  thus  avail  ourselves  of  their  more  inno- 
cent prejudices  in  opposition  to  their  passions  and  vices. 
But  in  doing  this,  we  are  precluded  from  directly  assail- 
ing those  prejudices ;  though  we  may  at  the  same  time 
be  establishing  truths  which  will  effect  their  gradual  abo- 
lition. Such  was,  I  believe,  in  some  particulars,  the 
mode  of  teaching  adopted  by  Christ. 

In  regard  to  some  of  the  errors  of  his  disciples,  it 
may  be  a  question  whether  the  plainest  language  would 
in  itself  alone  have  been  sufficient  to  remove  them.  I 
may  rather  say,  it  evidently  would  not  have  been  suffi- 
cient. The  very  subject  of  this  volume  shows,  if  the 
opinions  maintained  in  it  be  true,  that  the  plainest  lan- 
guage has  not  been  sufficient  to  preserve  men  from  the 
orossest  errors.  Yet  the  words  of  Christ  have  not  less 
authority  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  than  when  uttered 
by  his  own  lips.  But  we  are  not  obliged  to  reason  thus 
indirectly.  We  may  see  in  the  accounts  of  his  ministry, 
how  often  our  Saviour  was  not  understood  by  his  disci- 
ples. As  he  was  approaching  Jerusalem  for  the  last 
time,  he  called  the  Twelve  together  and  said;  "Lo!  we 
are  going  up  to  Jerusalem,"  and  the  Son  of  Man  "will 
be  delivered  up  to  the  Heathen,  and  will  be  mocked 
and  scorned  and  spit  upon ;  and  having  scourged  him, 
they  will  put  him  to  death ;  and  on  the  third  day  he 
will  return  to  life."  No  language  can  be  more  simple 
and  explicit  than  this.  But  the  Evangelist  goes  on  to 
relate,  that  the  Apostles  "  understood  it  not  at  all ;  the 
meaning  of  his  words  was  hidden  from  them,  and  they 


324  APPENDIX. 

did  not  comprehend  what  he  said."  *  How  little  they 
understood  this  and  other  declarations  of  Christ,  may 
appear  from  the  fact,  that  the  next  event  recorded  by 
the  Evangelists  is  the  application  on  the  part  of  James 
and  John,  for  the  highest  places  under  Christ,  in  that 
temporal  kingdom  on  which  their  hopes  were  still  fixed. 
The  prediction  of  his  resurrection,  though  repeatedly 
made  by  him,  was,  we  know,  so  little  comprehended  by 
them,  that  no  hope,  and  apparently  no  thought,  of  that 
event  was  entertained  by  them  after  his  death.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  they  expected  a  visible  return  of 
our  Saviour  from  heaven,  to  establish  his  kingdom,  though 
he  himself  had  declared,  "  The  coming  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  not  to  be  observed,  nor  will  men  say,  Behold 
it  is  here,  or,  Behold  it  is  there  ;  for  behold,  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  within  you "  ;  and  though  in  the  clearest 
manner,  and  under  circumstances  the  most  solemn,  he 
had  affirmed,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

We  are  apt  to  fall  into  a  great  mistake  from  not  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  feelings  and  conceptions,  the 
whole  state  of  character,  of  an  enlightened  Christian  at 
the  present  day,  and  those  of  the  Jews  to  whom  Christ 
preached.  It  may  seem  to  us  as  if  a  few  words  of  his 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  do  away  any  error,  however 
inveterate,  because  we  think  their  effect  would  be  such 
upon  our  own  minds.  We  may  wonder  that  those  words 
were  not  uttered.  We  may  almost  be  tempted  to  ask, 
Why  was  a  teacher  from  God  so  sparing  of  his  knowl- 
edge, so  limited  in  his  instructions  ?  Why  did  he  not 
deliver  his   Apostles   at  least  from  all    their  mistaken 

*  Luke  xviii.  31  -  34. 


APPENDIX.  325 

apprehensions  having  any  connexion  with  the  facts  or 
truths  of  religion  ?  How  could  he  leave  the  world  with 
so  many  false  and  pernicious  opinions  existing  around 
him  in  full  vigor,  against  which  he  had  not  declared 
himself?  And  why,  with  the  same  feelings,  we  might 
go  on  to  ask,  do  the  great  truths  of  religion  appear,  as 
disclosed  by  him,  in  such  naked,  monumental,  severe 
grandeur  ?  Why  do  they  stand  alone,  separated  from 
all  truths  not  essential  to  our  faith  ?  Why  were  not  the 
many  questions  answered,  the  many  doubts  solved,  which 
we  might  be  disposed  to  lay  before  Christ,  or  which  his 
disciples,  if  we  imagine  them  as  inquiring  and  as  teacha- 
ble as  ourselves,  might  have  proposed  ? 

To  inquiries  such  as  these  it  has  been  my  purpose  to 
afford  some  answer  in  what  has  been  suggested.  As  a 
teacher  from  God,  it  was  the  proper  and  sole  office  of 
Christ  to  make  known  to  men,  on  the  authority  of  God, 
the  fundamental  truths  of  religion.  To  inculcate  these 
alone  was  a  task  which  demanded  his  whole  efforts,  his 
own  undivided  attention,  and  that  of  his  most  willing 
hearers.  They  were  to  be  kept  distinct  from  all  other 
truths.  The  minds  of  men  were  not  to  be  withdrawn 
from  them  by  bringing  any  other  subject  into  discussion. 
When  we  ask  why  Christ  did  not  proceed  further  to 
enlighten  his  hearers,  we  forget  how  unprepared  they 
were  for  such  instruction,  what  prejudices  must  have 
been  overcome,  what  wrong  associations  broken,  how 
much  of  inquiry  on  their  part,  and  of  explanation  on  his, 
would  have  been  necessary,  how  liable  his  language  was 
to  be  misunderstood,  and  how  fatal  it  would  have  been 
to  the  purpose  of  his  mission  thus  to  occupy  their 
thoughts  upon  topics  unconnected  with  it.  We  forget 
28 


326 


APPENDIX. 


what  opposition  he  had  to  encounter,  how  all  his  words 
and  actions  were  watched  with  malignant  eyes,  how 
often  his  enemies  came  proposing  questions  to  try  what 
he  would  say,  that  they  might  find  opportunity  to  in- 
jure him.*  We  do  not  remember,  that  no  error  could  be 
touched  without  affording  some  new  occasion  or  pre- 
tence of  hatred ;  and  that  whatever  he  spoke  would  be 
misunderstood,  perverted,  misrepresented,  and  made  a 
ground  for  false  inferences.  We  do  not  keep  in  mind 
the  imperfect  apprehensions  of  his  disciples,  of  which 
we  find  continual  notices  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  utter 
indocility  of  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  which  is  equally 
apparent.  We  forget,  that  after  a  ministry  of  uninter- 
mitted  effort,  he  fell  a  sacrifice  to  the  truths  which  he 
did  teach.  In  asking  why  his  instructions  did  not  ex- 
tend to  other  truths,  and  to  the  correction  of  errors  not 
essential,  we  forget  how  difficult  was  his  proper  office, 
we  forget  by  whom  he  was  surrounded,  we  forget  the 
reproach  that  was  forced  from  his  lips  ;  "  Oh  unbelieving 
and  perverted  race  !  how  long  must  I  be  with  you  !  how 
long  must  I  bear  with  you  !  "  It  was  not  to  men  so 
little  ready  to  receive  his  essential  doctrines,  that  any 
unnecessary  instruction  was  to  be  addressed.  We  mis- 
take altogether  the  state  of  the  case,  when,  in  reading 
the  Gospels,  we  conceive  of  Christ  as  teaching  with  the 
same  freedom  of  explanation,  and  with  the  same  use  of 
language,  with  which  we  may  perhaps  reasonably  sup- 
pose that  he  would  have  taught  a  body  of  enlightened 
men,  receiving  his  words  with  the  entire  deference  with 
which  we  now  regard  them. 

*  The  Common  Version  says,  u  To  tempt  him." 


APPENDIX.  327 

The  wisdom  and  the  self-restraint,  for  so  it  is  to  be 
considered,  of  our  Saviour,  in  confining  bis  teaching  to 
the  essential  truths  of  religion,  and  the  broad  distinction 
which  he  thus  made  between  these  and  all  other  doc- 
trines, appear  to  me  among  the  most  striking  proofs  of 
the  divinity  of  his  mission.  I  cannot  believe,  that  a 
merely  human  teacher  would  have  conducted  himself 
with  such  perfect  wisdom ;  that  he  would  never  have 
attempted  to  use  his  authority,  or  have  displayed  his 
superior  knowledge,  in  maintaining  other  truths  than 
those  which  essentially  concern  the  virtue  and  happiness 
of  mankind  ;  that  he  would  have  refrained  from  exposing 
or  contradicting  the  errors  of  his  opponents  on  any  other 
subjects ;  that  he  would  have  succeeded  in  communicat- 
ing to  his  disciples  those  principles,  which  are  the  foun- 
dation of  all  religion  and  morality,  without  perplexing 
their  minds  by  the  discussion  of  any  topics  less  impor- 
tant ;  and,  at  last,  have  left  his  doctrine  a  monument  for 
all  future  time,  —  not  like  the  works  of  some  enlightened 
men,  which  perish  with  the  errors  they  destroy,  but 
remaining  a  universal  code  of  instruction  for  mankind. 

But  there  is  another  very  different  point  of  view, 
under  which  the  subject  we  have  been  examining  affords, 
I  think,  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity.  If 
the  Gospels  are  an  authentic  account  of  what  was  done 
and  said  by  Christ,  no  question  can  remain  whether 
Christ  were  a  teacher  from  God.  But  that  they  are  so, 
we  have  evidence  in  the  facts  which  have  been  brought 
to  view. 

When  we  compare  the  language  of  Christ  respecting 
his  future  coming  with  the  expectations  expressed  by  his 


328  APPENDIX. 

Apostles,  we  perceive  that  his  language  was  misunder- 
stood by  them.  He  did  not  predict  his  visible  return  to 
earth  to  be  the  judge  of  men.  There  is  nothing  in  his 
words  which  requires  or  justifies  such  an  interpretation  of 
them.  It  has  appeared,  I  trust,  that  the  figurative  lan- 
guage which  he  used,  is  to  be  understood  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent sense. 

But  the  Apostles,  from  various  causes,  were  expect- 
ing such  a  return  of  their  blaster.  Their  words  admit 
of  no  probable  explanation,  except  as  referring  to  this 
anticipated  event.  What  then  follows  as  a  correct  infer- 
ence from  this  comparison  ? 

It  follows  that  the  words  relating  to  this  subject,  which 
are  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  were  truly  his 
words.  They  were  not  falsely  ascribed  to  him.  They 
were  not  imagined  for  him.  They  were  not  conformed 
to  the  apprehensions  of  his  followers.  Had  his  followers 
fabricated  or  intentionally  modified  the  words,  they  would 
have  made  their  Master  say  what  they  themselves  have 
said,  in  language  as  explicit  as  their  own. 

Here  then  we  have  evidence  of  the  most  unsuspicious 
kind,  for  it  is  clearly  evidence  which  it  was  the  purpose 
of  no  individual  to  furnish,  that  certain  words  recorded 
in  the  Gospels  were  uttered  by  Christ.  The  writers  of 
these  books  did  not  in  this  case  fabricate  language  ex- 
pressive of  their  own  opinions,  and  ascribe  it  to  him. 
And  if  they  did  not  in  this  case,  concerning  a  subject,  on 
which  they  taught  what  he  did  not  teach,  we  have  no 
reason  to  suspect  them  of  having,  in  any  other  case,  in- 
tentionally ascribed  to  him  words  which  he  did  not  utter. 

The  words,  then,  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Gospels 
are  words  of  Christ.     They  have  been  reported  by  well- 


APPENDIX. 


329 


informed  individuals,  who  had  no  intention  of  deceiving, 
and  who  did  not  even  conform  them  to  their  own  appre- 
hension of  their  meaning.  I  will  not  pursue  the  infer- 
ences from  these  truths.  I  will  only  observe,  that  the 
proof  of  them,  as  we  have  seen,  is,  through  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  bound  up  in  the  New  Testament  itself. 
An  error  of  the  Apostles  proves  the  reality  of  their  faith. 
In  seeking  to  solve  a  difficulty,  we  discover  unexpected 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  And  I  am  per- 
suaded, that  as  the  New  Testament  is  better  understood, 
as  the  false  notions  that  have  prevailed  concerning  it 
pass  away,  and  it  is  made  a  subject  of  enlightened  inves- 
tigation and  philosophical  study,  new  and  irresistible 
proofs  will  appear  of  that  fact,  of  which  we  can  hardly 
estimate  the  full  magnitude  and  interest,  that  Christ  was 
a  teacher  from  God. 

In  reference,  indeed,  to  the  very  subject  we  have 
been  examining,  there  is  another  consideration  well  de- 
serving of  attention.  We  have  seen  wThat  were  the 
anticipations  of  the  Apostles  concerning  the  personal 
return  of  their  Master  to  earth,  and  the  approaching 
termination  of  the  world.  But  in  connexion  with  these 
expectations,  a  remarkable  phenomenon  presents  itself. 
We  might  have  supposed,  that  the  imaginations  and  feel- 
ings of  the  Apostles  would  have  been  seized  upon  and 
inflamed  by  the  prospect  of  such  events  ;  that  they  would 
have  continually  placed  them  before  the  eyes  of  those 
wThom  they  addressed  and  urged  them  upon  the  thoughts 
of  men ;  that  their  exhortations  and  warnings  would 
always  have  borne  the  impress  of  anticipations  so  extra- 
ordinary and  so  exciting.     But  this  is  not  the  case.     We 


330  APPENDIX. 

may  read  far  the  greater  part  of  what  they  have  left  us 
in  writing,  without  discovering  an  intimation  that  they 
held  such  opinions.  It  is  clear,  that  they  did  not  insist 
upon  the  facts  in  question  as  of  any  considerable  moment. 
They  introduce  the  mention  of  them  as  accessory  ideas 
in  connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  immortality  and  retri- 
bution. Imagine  any  other  body  of  individuals  laboring 
with  like  earnestness  and  devotion  for  the  reformation  of 
their  fellow  men,  under  a  similar  belief  of  the  approach- 
ing end  of  the  world  ;  —  imagine  what  would  be  the 
feelings  and  language  of  such  individuals,  and  contrast 
them  with  those  of  the  Apostles,  and  you  may  perceive 
what  a  singular  phenomenon  is  presented  in  the  New 
Testament. 

In  what  manner  is  this  phenomenon  to  be  explained  ? 
How  is  the  problem  to  be  solved,  that  men,  anticipating 
the  end  of  the  world  and  the  final  judgment  of  mankind 
as  at  hand,  should  have  insisted  so  little  upon  these 
events  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  the  terrors  or  the 
hopes  of  those  whom  they  addressed  ?  It  can  be  ex- 
plained, I  think,  but  in  one  way.  The  feelings  which 
those  expected  events  would  naturally  have  produced, 
were  absorbed  in  the  deeper,  the  intenser  feeling  pro- 
duced by  a  thorough  conviction  of  the  essential  truths  of 
religion.  To  them,  who  knew  themselves  the  creatures, 
the  care,  the  special  ministers  of  the  God  of  Love ;  to 
them,  the  disciples  of  his  Son,  the  witnesses,  nay,  them- 
selves the  very  agents  of  that  divine  power  by  which 
the  laws  of  nature  were  suspended ;  to  them,  before 
whose  view  the  clouds  resting  upon  eternity  had  been 
rolled  away,  the  consummation  of  this  world  was  of  little 
more  concern  than  the  revolution  of  an  empire.    Assured 


APPENDIX.  331 

of  immortality,  and  with  every  thing  to  give  strength  to 
the  feeling  which  this  assurance  is  adapted  to  produce, 
it  was  of  small  moment  to  them  or  to  their  disciples, 
whether  with  the  dead  they  should  be  raised  incorrupti- 
ble, or  whether  with  the  living  they  should  be  changed. 
One  all-penetrating  sentiment  of  the  truth  of  their  reli- 
gion annihilated  the  power  of  smaller  excitements. 
Their  feelings  were  calmed  by  the  contemplation  of  one 
absorbing  interest,  which  no  changes  could  affect. 

How,  then,  was  this  conviction  of  the  truth  of  their 
religion  produced,  this  conviction  which  so  wrought  upon 
their  minds,  that  the  anticipated  consummation  and  judg- 
ment of  the  world  had  no  power  strongly  to  move  them? 
There  is  one  answer  to  this  question  which  a  Christian 
will  give.     I  know  of  no  other. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

CHARLES    FOLSOM,    PRINTER  TO    THE     UNIVERSITT. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01007  68*" 


DATE  DUE 

/ 

HIGHSMITH  #45230 


